Evaluating Foundation Models in Bioinformatics: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods, Applications, and Benchmarking

Abstract

Foundation models are revolutionizing bioinformatics by providing powerful, adaptable tools for analyzing complex biological data. This article offers a critical evaluation of these models for researchers and drug development professionals, addressing their core concepts, diverse methodological applications across genomics, transcriptomics, and drug discovery, and the significant challenges of data fragmentation and interpretability. It provides a practical framework for model selection, troubleshooting, and optimization, synthesizing insights from recent benchmarking studies to guide the effective implementation of foundation models in both research and clinical settings.

Demystifying Foundation Models: Core Concepts and the Current Landscape in Bioinformatics

What Are Foundation Models? Defining Large-Scale, Self-Supervised AI for Biology

Foundation Models (FMs) are large-scale artificial intelligence systems pre-trained on vast, unlabeled datasets using self-supervised learning, enabling them to be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks. In biology, these models are reconceptualizing biological sequences and structures—from DNA and proteins to single-cell data—as a form of language amenable to advanced computational analysis. This guide objectively compares the performance of leading FMs against traditional methods and simpler baselines in key bioinformatics applications, providing supporting experimental data to inform researchers and drug development professionals. The evaluation reveals that while FMs show immense promise, their performance is context-dependent, and in several cases, they are surprisingly outperformed by more straightforward approaches.

Foundation Models (FMs) represent a paradigm shift in bioinformatics artificial intelligence (AI). They are large-scale models pre-trained on extensive datasets, which allows them to learn fundamental patterns and relationships within the data. This pre-training is typically done using self-supervised learning, a method that generates labels directly from the data itself, eliminating the need for vast, manually curated datasets. Once pre-trained, these models can be adapted (fine-tuned) for a diverse array of specific downstream tasks with relatively minimal task-specific data [1] [2].

In biology, FMs treat biological entities—such as nucleotide sequences, amino acid chains, or gene expression profiles—as structured sequences or "languages." By learning the statistical patterns and complex grammar of these languages, FMs can make predictions about structure, function, and interactions that were previously challenging for computational methods [3]. The evolution of these models has progressed from task-specific networks to sophisticated, multi-purpose architectures like the AlphaFold series for protein structure prediction and transformer-based models like DNABERT for genomic sequence analysis [2].

Performance Comparison of Foundation Models

Independent benchmarking studies are crucial for evaluating the real-world performance of FMs against traditional and baseline methods. The data below summarizes findings from recent, rigorous comparisons.

Performance on Post-Perturbation Gene Expression Prediction

Predicting a cell's transcriptomic response to a genetic perturbation is a critical task in functional genomics and drug discovery. The table below benchmarks specialized foundation models against simpler baseline models across several key datasets [4].

• Datasets: Adamson (CRISPRi), Norman (CRISPRa), Replogle (CRISPRi in K562 & RPE1 cells)
• Primary Metric: Pearson correlation in differential expression space (Pearson Delta), comparing predicted vs. true pseudo-bulk expression profiles.
• Key Comparison:
  • Foundation Models: scGPT, scFoundation
  • Baseline Models: Train Mean (predicts the average training profile), Random Forest (RF) with Gene Ontology (GO) features, RF with model embeddings.

Table 1: Benchmarking Post-Perturbation Prediction Models (Pearson Delta Metric) [4]

Model	Adamson	Norman	Replogle (K562)	Replogle (RPE1)
Train Mean (Baseline)	0.711	0.557	0.373	0.628
RF with GO Features	0.739	0.586	0.480	0.648
scGPT (FM)	0.641	0.554	0.327	0.596
scFoundation (FM)	0.552	0.459	0.269	0.471
RF with scGPT Embeddings	0.727	0.583	0.421	0.635

Analysis: The data reveals that even the simplest baseline, Train Mean, outperformed both scGPT and scFoundation across all four datasets. Furthermore, a Random Forest model using biologically meaningful GO features significantly surpassed the foundation models. Notably, using scGPT's own embeddings within a Random Forest model yielded better performance than the fine-tuned scGPT model itself, suggesting the embeddings contain valuable information that the full FM's architecture may not be leveraging optimally for this task [4].

Performance on Single-Cell Data Representation

For single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, a primary application of FMs is to learn meaningful embeddings of cell states that can be used for zero-shot tasks like cell-type clustering without additional fine-tuning.

Table 2: Benchmarking Single-Cell Foundation Models on Zero-Shot Clustering [5]

Model Type	Example Models	Performance vs. Baselines
Single-Cell FMs	Geneformer, scGPT	In most evaluation tasks, these large models did not outperform simpler competitor methods. Their learned representations did not consistently reflect the claimed biological insight.
Simpler Methods	(e.g., PCA, standard autoencoders)	Often provided equal or better performance for tasks like cell-type clustering and batch integration.

Analysis: A 2025 evaluation by Kedzierska and Lu found that the promise of zero-shot biological insight from single-cell FM embeddings is not yet fully realized. Contrary to expectations, their massive scale and complexity did not automatically translate to superior performance over more established and less complex methods for fundamental analysis tasks [5].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure the reproducibility and validity of the comparisons presented, this section details the core experimental methodologies employed in the cited benchmarks.

Protocol for Post-Perturbation Prediction

The benchmarking study for models like scGPT and scFoundation followed a rigorous, standardized protocol [4]:

• Model Fine-Tuning: The pre-trained foundation models (scGPT and scFoundation) were fine-tuned on the target Perturb-seq datasets (Adamson, Norman, Replogle) according to their authors' specifications.
• Baseline Model Implementation:
  • Train Mean: The pseudo-bulk expression profile (average of all single-cell profiles) was computed for each perturbation in the training set. The overall mean of these training profiles was used as the prediction for every test sample.
  • Random Forest Models: A Random Forest Regressor was trained using prior-knowledge features. For a given perturbation (e.g., knockout of gene X), the input feature was the GO term vector or model-derived embedding of gene X. The target was the pseudo-bulk expression profile for that perturbation.
• Evaluation Metric Calculation:
  • Predictions were made at the single-cell level and then averaged to create a pseudo-bulk profile per perturbation.
  • Pearson Delta: The Pearson correlation was calculated between the ground truth pseudo-bulk profile and the predicted pseudo-bulk profile. This was done in the differential expression space, meaning the control profile was subtracted from both the predicted and ground-truth perturbed profiles before correlation.
  • Performance was also assessed on the top 20 differentially expressed genes to focus on the most significant changes.

Protocol for Single-Cell Representation Learning

The evaluation of single-cell FMs like Geneformer and scGPT focused on their zero-shot capabilities [5]:

• Embedding Extraction: The pre-trained models (without further fine-tuning on the evaluation datasets) were used to generate embedding representations for cells from a hold-out dataset.
• Task Application: These embeddings were directly used as input for standard downstream analysis tasks, including:
  • Cell-Type Clustering: Applying clustering algorithms (e.g., K-means, Leiden) to the embeddings and comparing the resulting clusters to known cell-type labels using metrics like Adjusted Rand Index (ARI).
  • Batch Integration: Evaluating how well the embeddings mixed cells from different experimental batches while preserving separation between distinct cell types.
• Comparison to Baselines: The performance on these tasks was compared against the performance achieved using embeddings from simpler, non-foundation model methods, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or standard autoencoders.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Solutions

The development and application of biological FMs rely on specific data types and computational resources. The following table details these essential "research reagents."

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Biological Foundation Model Research

Reagent / Solution	Function in Foundation Model Research
UniProt Knowledgebase [3]	A comprehensive database of protein sequence and functional information. Serves as a primary pre-training corpus for protein-language models like ProtGPT2 and ProtBERT.
Protein Data Bank (PDB) [3]	The single global archive for 3D structural data of proteins and nucleic acids. Critical for training and validating structure prediction models like AlphaFold and ESMFold.
Perturb-seq Datasets [4]	Combinatorial CRISPR-based perturbations with single-cell RNA sequencing readouts. The standard benchmark for evaluating model predictions of transcriptional responses to genetic interventions.
Model Embeddings (e.g., from scGPT, DNABERT)	Dense numerical representations of biological entities (genes, cells, sequences) learned by the FM. They can be used as features in simpler models (like Random Forest) for specific tasks.
Gene Ontology (GO) Vectors [4]	Structured, controlled vocabularies (ontologies) describing gene function. Used as biologically meaningful input features for baseline models, often outperforming raw FM outputs in benchmarks.
7-Oxo-ganoderic acid Z	7-Oxo-ganoderic acid Z, MF:C30H46O4, MW:470.7 g/mol
Irak4-IN-17	Irak4-IN-17, MF:C17H20F2N8O, MW:390.4 g/mol

Workflow Diagram: From Pre-training to Biological Insight

The following diagram illustrates the standard workflow for developing and applying a foundation model in bioinformatics, from self-supervised pre-training to task-specific fine-tuning and benchmarking.

The landscape of foundation models in biology is dynamic and promising. Models like AlphaFold have demonstrated revolutionary capabilities in specific domains like protein structure prediction [3] [2]. However, independent benchmarking provides a necessary critical perspective. As the data shows, for tasks such as predicting transcriptional responses to perturbation or zero-shot cell type identification, large, complex FMs do not uniformly outperform simpler, often more interpretable, methods [4] [5].

The choice of model should therefore be guided by the specific biological question and data context. Researchers are advised to:

• Consider Simpler Baselines: Always benchmark FMs against straightforward baselines, like mean predictors or models using established biological features (e.g., GO terms).
• Evaluate Embeddings Separately: The embeddings learned by FMs can be valuable even if the full model is suboptimal for a task; using them as features in other models can yield better performance.
• Acknowledge Data Limitations: FMs require massive datasets for pre-training, and their performance can be constrained by the quality and scope of available biological data, especially for rare cell types [6].

The future of FMs in bioinformatics lies not only in scaling up but also in smarter architecture design, improved benchmarking, and the development of data-efficient "on-device" learning strategies to tackle the vast diversity of biological systems [6].

The field of bioinformatics is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by the adoption of foundation models—large-scale, self-supervised artificial intelligence models trained on extensive datasets that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks [1]. These models, predominantly built on transformer architectures with attention mechanisms, are reconceptualizing biological sequences—from DNA and proteins to single-cell data—as a form of 'language' amenable to advanced computational techniques [3]. This approach has created new opportunities for interpreting complex biological systems and accelerating biomedical research. The primary architectural backbone enabling these advances is the transformer, which utilizes attention mechanisms to weight the importance of different elements in input data, allowing models to capture intricate long-range relationships in biological sequences [7] [1]. These technical foundations are now being applied to diverse biological data types, creating specialized foundation models for genomics, single-cell analysis, and protein research that demonstrate remarkable adaptability across downstream tasks. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these key architectural paradigms, their performance across biological domains, and the experimental methodologies used for their evaluation, framed within the broader context of assessing foundation models in bioinformatics research.

Architectural Foundations and Biological Adaptations

Core Transformer Architecture and Attention Mechanisms

The transformer architecture, originally developed for natural language processing, has become the fundamental building block for biological foundation models. Transformers are neural network architectures characterized by self-attention mechanisms that allow the model to learn and weight relationships between any pair of input tokens [7]. In biological applications, this enables models to determine which genes, nucleotides, or amino acids in a sequence are most informative for predicting structure, function, or relationships. The key innovation of transformers is their multi-head self-attention mechanism, which computes weighted sums of values where the weights are determined by compatibility queries and keys, allowing the model to jointly attend to information from different representation subspaces [1]. This capability is particularly valuable in biological contexts where long-range dependencies—such as the relationship between distant genomic regions or amino acids in a protein structure—play critical functional roles.

The self-attention mechanism operates through three fundamental components: Query (Q), Key (K), and Value (V). Given an input sequence of embeddings, these embeddings are linearly transformed into query, key, and value spaces using learnable weight matrices. The attention operation is formally defined as:

[ \text{Attention}(Q,K,V)=\text{softmax}\left(\frac{QK^{T}}{\sqrt{d_{k}}}\right)V ]

where (d_{k}) represents the dimension of the key vectors [8]. This mechanism allows the model to selectively focus on the most relevant features when making predictions, analogous to how biological systems prioritize information processing.

Biological Sequence Tokenization Strategies

A critical adaptation of transformers to biological data involves tokenization—the process of converting raw biological sequences into discrete units that the model can process. Unlike natural language, biological sequences lack inherent ordering, requiring specialized tokenization strategies:

• DNA Sequences: Typically tokenized at single-nucleotide, k-mer, or codon levels, with models like Nucleotide Transformer using 6kb sequence contexts [9].
• Protein Sequences: Amino acids serve as natural tokens, though some models incorporate higher-order structural information [3].
• Single-Cell Data: Genes or genomic features become tokens, with expression values incorporated through binning or normalization strategies [7]. Some models rank genes by expression levels to create deterministic sequences, while others use special tokens to represent cell identity, metadata, or experimental batch information [7].

Positional encoding schemes are adapted to represent the relative order or rank of each element in the biological sequence, overcoming the non-sequential nature of data like gene expression profiles [7].

Emerging Architectural Variants

Recent research has explored specialized transformer architectures tailored to biological data's unique characteristics:

• Neuromorphic Transformers: The Spiking STDP Transformer (S2TDPT) implements self-attention through spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP), embedding query-key correlations in synaptic weights for extreme energy efficiency (88.47% reduction compared to standard ANN Transformers) while maintaining competitive accuracy [8].
• Bidirectional vs. Autoregressive Models: Discriminative foundation models like BERT variants use bidirectional context to capture semantic meaning, while generative models like GPT variants employ autoregressive methods for sequence generation [1].
• Hierarchical and Multi-Scale Architectures: Some models incorporate mechanisms to capture biological information at different scales, from nucleotide-level to chromosome-level interactions [9].

Performance Comparison of Biological Foundation Models

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DNA Foundation Models on Genomic Tasks

Model	Parameters	Training Data	Average MCC (18 tasks)	Fine-tuning Efficiency	Key Strengths
Nucleotide Transformer (Multispecies 2.5B)	2.5 billion	850 species genomes	0.683 (matches or surpasses baseline in 12/18 tasks)	0.1% of parameters needed	Best overall performance, strong cross-species generalization
Nucleotide Transformer (1000G 2.5B)	2.5 billion	3,202 human genomes	0.672	0.1% of parameters needed	Excellent human-specific performance
Nucleotide Transformer (1000G 500M)	500 million	3,202 human genomes	0.655	0.1% of parameters needed	Good performance with reduced computational requirements
DNA BERT	Varies	Human reference genome	~0.61 (probing)	Full fine-tuning typically required	Established benchmark for DNA language modeling
BPNet (supervised baseline)	28 million	Task-specific	0.683	N/A (trained from scratch)	Strong task-specific performance

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Parameters	Training Data	Zero-shot Clustering Performance	Key Limitations	Recommended Use Cases
scGPT	~100 million	CellxGene (100M+ cells)	Underperforms traditional methods	Poor masked gene expression prediction	Fine-tuning on specific cell types
Geneformer	~100 million	30 million single-cell profiles	Underperforms traditional methods	Limited biological insight in embeddings	Transfer learning with extensive fine-tuning
scVI (traditional baseline)	~1-10 million	Dataset-specific	Superior clustering by cell type	Requires per-dataset training	Standard clustering and batch correction
Harmony (statistical baseline)	N/A	Dataset-specific	Superior batch effect correction	No transfer learning capability	Data integration and batch correction

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Protein Language Models

Model	Architecture	Key Applications	Notable Achievements	Limitations
ProtTrans	Transformer	Structure and function prediction	Competitive with specialized methods	Computational intensity
ESM	Transformer	Structure prediction	State-of-the-art accuracy	Requires fine-tuning for specific tasks
AlphaFold	Hybrid (CNN+Transformer)	Structure prediction	Near-experimental accuracy	Not a pure language model
ProteinBERT	BERT-like	Function prediction	Universal sequence-function modeling	Limited structural awareness

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Standardized Benchmarking Approaches

Rigorous evaluation of biological foundation models requires standardized benchmarks and experimental protocols. For DNA foundation models like Nucleotide Transformer, evaluation typically involves:

• Task Diversity: Curated datasets encompassing splice site prediction (GENCODE), promoter identification (Eukaryotic Promoter Database), histone modification prediction (ENCODE), and enhancer activity prediction [9].
• Evaluation Strategies: Two primary approaches are employed:
  • Probing: Using learned embeddings as input features to simpler models (logistic regression or small MLP) to assess representation quality.
  • Fine-tuning: Replacing the model head with task-specific layers and retraining with parameter-efficient techniques.
• Cross-Validation: Rigorous k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold) to ensure statistical significance of results [9].

For the Nucleotide Transformer, researchers curated 18 genomic datasets processed into standardized formats to facilitate reproducible benchmarking. Performance is measured using Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) for classification tasks, providing a balanced measure even with imbalanced class distributions [9].

Zero-shot Evaluation Protocols

Zero-shot evaluation is particularly important for assessing model generalization without task-specific fine-tuning. The protocol typically involves:

• Cell Type Clustering: Applying models to unseen single-cell data and evaluating whether embeddings group cells by biological function rather than technical artifacts [10].
• Batch Effect Correction: Assessing whether models can identify biological similarities despite confounding technical variations between experiments [10].
• Comparative Baselines: Comparing against traditional methods like scVI, Harmony, and simple feature selection approaches (Highly Variable Genes) [10].

Recent evaluations of single-cell foundation models revealed significant limitations in zero-shot settings, with these models underperforming simpler traditional methods across multiple datasets [5] [10]. This highlights the importance of rigorous zero-shot benchmarking before deploying models in discovery contexts.

Parameter-Efficient Fine-tuning Techniques

Given the massive parameter counts in foundation models, full fine-tuning is often computationally prohibitive. Recent approaches employ parameter-efficient methods:

• Adapter Modules: Small bottleneck layers inserted between transformer layers that contain only 0.1% of the total model parameters [9].
• Selective Layer Tuning: Only fine-tuning specific subsets of layers, often with the best performance coming from intermediate rather than final layers [9].
• Transfer Learning Protocols: Pre-training on diverse datasets followed by task-specific adaptation, with studies showing that models trained on multispecies data often outperform those trained solely on human genomes, even for human-specific tasks [9].

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Computational Tools

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Biological Foundation Models

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Access
Nucleotide Transformer	Foundation Model	DNA sequence representation learning	[9]
scGPT	Foundation Model	Single-cell multi-omics analysis	[7] [10]
Geneformer	Foundation Model	Single-cell transcriptomics embedding	[10]
CZ CELLxGENE	Data Resource	Unified access to annotated single-cell datasets	[7]
Hugging Face Transformers	Software Library	Transformer model implementation and sharing	-
ENCODE	Data Resource	Reference epigenomics datasets for benchmarking	[9]
ProteinBERT	Foundation Model	Protein sequence and function modeling	[3]

Architectural Workflow and Experimental Design

Diagram 1: Biological Foundation Model Workflow. This diagram illustrates the end-to-end pipeline for developing and applying biological foundation models, from data processing through to biological applications.

The integration of transformer architectures and attention mechanisms with biological data represents a transformative development in bioinformatics. Performance comparisons reveal a complex landscape where foundation models demonstrate impressive capabilities in specific domains—particularly DNA sequence analysis and protein structure prediction—while showing limitations in others, such as zero-shot single-cell analysis. The experimental evidence indicates that model scale, training data diversity, and appropriate fine-tuning strategies significantly impact performance, with multispecies models often outperforming specialized counterparts even on species-specific tasks. As the field matures, standardization of evaluation protocols and acknowledgment of current limitations will be crucial for responsible adoption. Future advancements will likely emerge from more biologically informed architectures, improved efficiency, and better integration of multimodal data, further solidifying the role of these paradigms in decoding biological complexity.

The pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm has emerged as a transformative framework in bioinformatics, enabling researchers to leverage large-scale biological atlases for specific analytical tasks. This approach involves first pre-training a model on vast, diverse datasets to learn fundamental biological representations, then fine-tuning it on smaller, task-specific datasets to adapt it to specialized applications [11] [12]. This paradigm is particularly valuable in fields like single-cell biology, where coordinated efforts such as CZI CELLxGENE, HuBMAP, and the Broad Institute Single Cell Portal have generated massive volumes of curated data [13]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this methodology addresses a critical challenge: extracting meaningful insights from enormous reference atlases that can exceed 1 terabyte in size using standard data structures [13]. Foundation models trained on these atlases demonstrate remarkable proficiency in managing large-scale, unlabeled datasets, which is especially valuable given that experimental procedures in biology are often costly and labor-intensive [12].

Core Concepts: Pretraining, Fine-Tuning, and Transfer Learning

Fundamental Definitions

• Pretraining: The initial phase where a model is trained on a large, general dataset to learn fundamental patterns and representations. In bioinformatics, this typically involves training on extensive biological atlases comprising diverse datasets [14].
• Fine-tuning: The subsequent process of adapting a pretrained model to a specific task using a smaller, specialized dataset. This requires far less data and computational resources compared to training a model from scratch [15].
• Transfer Learning: The broader concept of transferring knowledge from a source domain (large reference atlases) to a target domain (specific research tasks), which underpins the pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm [16] [17].

Key Distinctions

It is crucial to distinguish between continuous pretraining (further training a pretrained model on new domain-specific data) and task-specific fine-tuning (adapting a model for a particular predictive task) [14]. Continuous pretraining enhances a model's domain knowledge using unlabeled data, while fine-tuning typically employs labeled data to specialize the model for a specific task like classification or regression [14].

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Architectural Surgery with scArches

The scArches (single-cell architectural surgery) methodology provides an advanced implementation of transfer learning for mapping query datasets onto reference atlases [16]. This approach uses transfer learning and parameter optimization to enable efficient, decentralized, iterative reference building without sharing raw data—addressing common legal restrictions on data sharing in biomedical research [16].

Experimental Protocol for scArches:

• Reference Model Training: Train a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE) such as scVI or trVAE on multiple reference datasets, assigning categorical labels to each dataset that correspond to study-specific conditions.
• Model Sharing: Share the trained reference model weights through a model repository while maintaining data privacy.
• Query Mapping: Extend the model architecture by adding trainable "adaptors" for new query datasets rather than modifying the entire network.
• Fine-tuning: Restrict trainable parameters to a small subset of weights for query study labels, functioning as an inductive bias to prevent overfitting.
• Iterative Integration: Contextualize new datasets with existing references while preserving biological variation and removing technical batch effects [16].

Benchmarking Fine-tuning Strategies

A systematic evaluation compared three fine-tuning strategies for mapping query datasets to reference atlases using a mouse brain atlas comprising 250,000 cells from two studies [16]:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Fine-Tuning Strategies

Fine-Tuning Strategy	Parameters Updated	Batch Effect Removal	Biological Conservation	Computational Efficiency
Adaptors Only	Minimal (query-specific adaptors)	High	High	Excellent
Input Layers	Encoder/decoder input layers	Moderate	Moderate	Good
All Weights	Entire model	High	Low	Poor

The adaptors-only approach, which updates the fewest parameters, demonstrated competitive performance in integrating different batches while preserving distinctions between cell types, making it particularly suitable for iterative atlas expansion [16].

Performance Comparison of Foundation Models in Bioinformatics

Model Typology and Applications

Foundation models in bioinformatics can be categorized into four main types, each with distinct strengths and applications [12]:

Table 2: Foundation Model Types and Their Bioinformatics Applications

Model Type	Example Architectures	Bioinformatics Applications	Key Strengths
Language FMs	DNABERT, BioBERT	Genome sequence analysis, regulatory element prediction	Captures biological "grammar" and syntax
Vision FMs	Cell Image Models	Cellular image analysis, morphology classification	Visual pattern recognition in biological structures
Graph FMs	Protein Structure Graphs	Protein-protein interactions, molecular property prediction	Represents complex relational biological data
Multimodal FMs	Multi-omics Integrators	Cross-modal data imputation, integrative analysis	Connects different data types (e.g., genomics + proteomics)

Quantitative Benchmarking

In a systematic evaluation of pancreas atlas integration, scArches was compared with de novo integration methods across key performance metrics [16]:

Table 3: Performance Metrics for Pancreas Atlas Integration

Method	Batch Effect Removal (ASW)	Biological Conservation (ARI)	Rare Cell Type Detection (ILS)	Computational Efficiency (Parameters)
scArches (trVAE)	0.78	0.89	0.82	~4 orders of magnitude fewer
scArches (scVI)	0.75	0.87	0.79	~4 orders of magnitude fewer
De Novo Integration	0.81	0.91	0.85	Full parameter set
Batch-Corrected PCA	0.62	0.76	0.58	N/A

Notably, scArches achieved comparable integration performance to de novo methods while using approximately four orders of magnitude fewer parameters, demonstrating exceptional computational efficiency [16].

Experimental Workflows and Visualization

scArches Workflow for Atlas Integration

Pretraining and Fine-Tuning Paradigm

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The effective implementation of the pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm requires specific computational tools and resources:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Atlas-Based Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Function	Access
Reference Atlases	CZI CELLxGENE, HuBMAP, Human Cell Atlas	Provide curated, large-scale single-cell data for pretraining	Public/controlled
Model Architectures	scVI, trVAE, scANVI, totalVI	Enable integration and analysis of single-cell data	Open source
Transfer Learning Frameworks	scArches, TensorFlow, Hugging Face Transformers	Facilitate model adaptation to new datasets	Open source
Data Formats	Zarr, Parquet, TileDB	Enable efficient storage and processing of large datasets	Open standards
Ontologies	Cell Ontology, MAMS	Standardize annotations and ensure interoperability	Community-driven

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite its promise, several challenges persist in applying the pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm to biological atlases. Batch effects - technical artifacts emerging from differences in data generation and processing - remain a significant concern, though methods like scArches can detect and correct these effects post hoc [13]. Metadata completeness is crucial for enabling stratified analyses and preventing misinterpretation of biological variation as technical noise [13]. As the field progresses, key priorities include developing improved compression algorithms for single-cell data, creating better subsampling approaches that preserve rare cell populations, and advancing latent space representations for more compact data representation [13].

The pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm represents a fundamental shift in how researchers can leverage large-scale biological data to address specific research questions. By enabling efficient knowledge transfer from massive reference atlases to specialized tasks, this approach accelerates discovery while maximizing the value of existing data resources. As foundation models continue to evolve in bioinformatics, their careful evaluation and application will be essential for driving innovation in basic research and drug development.

The field of bioinformatics is undergoing a transformative shift with the integration of foundation models. These advanced artificial intelligence systems are moving beyond traditional sequence analysis to tackle complex challenges in drug discovery, protein engineering, and personalized medicine. This guide provides a systematic comparison of four core model types—Language, Vision, Graph, and Multimodal—framed within the context of evaluating their performance and applicability for bioinformatics research. We synthesize the latest benchmark data and experimental protocols to offer researchers and drug development professionals a structured framework for model selection.

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, leading examples, and primary bioinformatics applications of the four model types discussed in this guide.

Table 1: Overview of Foundation Model Types in Bioinformatics

Model Type	Core Function	Exemplary Models (2025)	Primary Bioinformatics Applications
Language (LLM)	Process, understand, and generate human and machine languages.	GPT-5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Llama 4 Scout, DeepSeek-R1 [18] [19] [20]	Scientific literature mining, genomic sequence analysis, automated hypothesis generation.
Vision (VLM)	Interpret and reason about visual and textual data.	Gemini 2.5 Pro, InternVL3-78B, FastVLM [21] [22]	Medical image analysis (e.g., histology, radiology), microscopy image interpretation, structural biology.
Graph (GNN)	Learn from data structured as graphs (entities and relationships).	GraphSAGE, GraphCast, GNoME [23]	Molecular property prediction, drug-target interaction networks, protein-protein interaction networks.
Multimodal	Process and integrate multiple data types (e.g., text, image, audio).	GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude 4.5 [21] [19]	Integrated analysis (e.g., combining medical images with clinical notes), multi-omics data fusion.

Performance Benchmarking and Quantitative Comparison

To objectively compare model capabilities, we present results from standardized benchmarks that are relevant to scientific reasoning and problem-solving.

General Reasoning and Knowledge Benchmarks

The following table consolidates performance data from several key benchmarks that test broad knowledge and reasoning abilities, which are foundational for scientific tasks.

Table 2: Performance on General Capability Benchmarks (Percentage Scores) [18]

Model	GPQA Diamond (Reasoning)	AIME 2025 (High School Math)	Humanity's Last Exam (Overall)	MMMLU (Multilingual Reasoning)
Gemini 3 Pro	91.9	100.0	45.8	91.8
GPT-5.1	88.1	-	-	-
Claude Opus 4.5	87.0	-	35.2	90.8
Grok 4	87.5	-	25.4	-
Kimi K2 Thinking	-	99.1	44.9	-

Specialized and Efficiency Benchmarks

For research environments, specialized task performance and computational efficiency are critical. The table below highlights performance on agentic coding and visual reasoning, alongside key efficiency metrics.

Table 3: Performance on Specialized Tasks and Efficiency Metrics [18] [21]

Model	SWE-Bench (Agentic Coding)	ARC-AGI 2 (Visual Reasoning)	Latency (TTFT in seconds)	Cost (USD per 1M output tokens)
Claude Sonnet 4.5	82.0	-	~0.3	$15.00
Claude Opus 4.5	80.9	37.8	~0.5	$25.00
GPT-5.1	76.3	18.0	-	$10.00
Gemini 3 Pro	76.2	31.0	~0.3	$12.00
Llama 4 Scout	-	-	0.33	$0.34

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

Understanding the methodology behind these benchmarks is essential for their critical appraisal and application to specific bioinformatics use cases.

Protocol for AesBiasBench: Evaluating Bias in Multimodal Models

This protocol is designed to assess stereotype bias and human alignment in multimodal models, which is crucial for ensuring fairness in biomedical applications [24].

• Task Design: Models are evaluated across three subtasks:
  • Aesthetic Perception: The model describes the aesthetic qualities of an image.
  • Aesthetic Assessment: The model provides a quantitative or qualitative rating of an image's aesthetics.
  • Aesthetic Empathy: The model predicts the emotional response a human might have to an image.
• Demographic Incorporation: To measure bias, demographic factors (e.g., gender, age, education) of the hypothetical image creator or viewer are systematically incorporated into the prompts.
• Metric Calculation:
  • Stereotype Bias: Quantified using metrics like IFD (Identity-Flipped Discrepancy) and NRD (Non-Identity Relative Discrepancy), which measure variation in model outputs across demographic groups.
  • Human Alignment: Measured using the AAS (Aesthetic Alignment Score) to quantify the concordance between model outputs and genuine human preferences from curated datasets.
• Model Comparison: The protocol evaluates a wide range of proprietary and open-source models (e.g., GPT-4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, InternVL-2.5) to compare their susceptibility to bias.

Protocol for Circuit Tracing in Language Models

This method from mechanistic interpretability research aims to uncover the internal "circuits" a model uses to produce an output, which can help verify the scientific soundness of a model's reasoning [25].

• Replacement Model Construction: A trained Cross-Layer Transcoder (CLT), which is an interpretable component, is substituted for the multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) in the original model. This CLT is designed to approximate the original model's outputs while using sparse, human-interpretable features.
• Attribution Graph Generation: For a specific input prompt, an "attribution graph" is produced. This graph describes the sequence of computational steps (active features and their linear effects) the replacement model used to generate the target output.
• Graph Pruning: The graph is pruned to retain only the nodes and edges that most contributed to the final output, creating a sparse, interpretable representation of the model's internal process.
• Validation via Perturbation: The discovered circuits are validated by perturbing the model's activations in the direction of key features and observing if the resulting changes in other features and the final output are consistent with the attribution graph.

Visualizing Model Architectures and Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate key architectural concepts and experimental workflows described in this guide.

Vision Language Model (VLM) High-Level Architecture

Diagram 1: Standard VLM architecture with a vision encoder and LLM.

Graph Neural Network (GNN) Message Passing

Diagram 2: GNN message-passing mechanism for learning node representations.

AesBiasBench Experimental Workflow

Diagram 3: AesBiasBench workflow for evaluating bias and alignment.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

This section details essential "research reagents" – in this context, key software tools, benchmarks, and datasets – required for conducting rigorous evaluations of foundation models in a bioinformatics context.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Model Evaluation

Reagent / Tool	Type	Primary Function in Evaluation
AesBiasBench [24]	Benchmark	Systematically evaluates stereotype bias and human alignment in multimodal models for subjective tasks.
GPQA Diamond [18]	Benchmark	A high-quality, difficult question-answering dataset requiring advanced reasoning, used to test expert-level knowledge.
SWE-Bench [18]	Benchmark	Evaluates models' ability to solve real-world software engineering issues, analogous to troubleshooting complex analysis pipelines.
Cross-Layer Transcoder (CLT) [25]	Methodological Tool	A key component in circuit tracing, used to create an interpretable replacement model for mechanistic analysis.
Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) [25]	Methodological Tool	Used to extract interpretable features from model activations, which serve as building blocks for understanding model circuits.
FastViTHD [22]	Model Component	A hybrid convolutional-transformer vision encoder optimized for high-resolution image processing in VLMs, improving efficiency and accuracy.
Dulcite-13C-3	Dulcite-13C-3, MF:C6H14O6, MW:183.16 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Neuraminidase-IN-2	Neuraminidase-IN-2|Potent Influenza Research Compound	Neuraminidase-IN-2 is a potent research compound for influenza studies. It inhibits viral neuraminidase. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.

In the era of data-driven biology, molecular, cellular, and textual repositories have become indispensable infrastructure supporting groundbreaking research from basic science to drug development. These resources provide the organized, accessible data essential for training and evaluating the foundation models that are revolutionizing bioinformatics. The evolution of biological data resources spans a hierarchy of sophistication—from simple archives of raw data to advanced information systems that integrate and analyze information across multiple sources [26]. As single-cell foundation models (scFMs) and large language models (LLMs) transform our ability to interpret complex biological systems, the quality and comprehensiveness of these underlying data repositories directly determine research outcomes [27] [28]. This guide provides an objective comparison of repository types and their experimental applications, offering researchers a framework for selecting appropriate resources based on specific research needs and contexts.

Repository Taxonomy and Functional Hierarchy

Biological data resources vary considerably in complexity, functionality, and maintenance requirements. Understanding these categories enables researchers to select appropriate resources for their specific applications, from simple data storage to complex analytical tasks.

Table 1: Classification and Characteristics of Biological Data Resources

Category	Complexity	Content & Metadata	Search & Retrieval	Data Mining Capabilities	Primary Audience
Archives	Low	Raw data with little or no metadata	Not indexed; cumbersome searching	Very difficult	Single lab or institution
Repositories	Medium	Primary data with some metadata	Indexed data facilitating basic searches	Limited to basic statistics	Collaborative/Public access
"Databases"	High	Extensively curated metadata	Search driven by database system	Built-in analysis and report tools	Single lab, organization, or public
Advanced Information Systems (AIS)	Very High	Curated metadata integrated with external resources	Efficient search and retrieval	Customizable tools for user data analysis	Organization or public

The distinctions between these categories are fluid, with many resources exhibiting hybrid characteristics. For instance, the Protein Data Bank (PDB) primarily functions as a repository but incorporates database-like features such as advanced search capabilities based on experimental details [26]. True Advanced Information Systems remain aspirational for most biological domains, though resources like UniProt and the PDB are evolving toward this comprehensive "hub" model by integrating increasingly sophisticated analytical tools and cross-references to external data sources [26] [29].

Figure 1: Data Resource Evolution Pathway. The diagram illustrates the hierarchical relationship between data resource types, showing how functionality increases with additional layers of structure, validation, and integration.

Experimental Benchmarking of Repository-Driven Foundation Models

Benchmarking Methodology for Single-Cell Foundation Models

The evaluation of repository-dependent foundation models requires rigorous benchmarking frameworks that assess performance across multiple dimensions. A comprehensive benchmark for single-cell foundation models (scFMs) should encompass two gene-level and four cell-level tasks evaluated across diverse datasets representing various biological conditions and clinical scenarios [27]. Performance should be measured using multiple metrics (typically 12 or more) spanning unsupervised, supervised, and knowledge-based approaches [27].

A critical methodological consideration is the implementation of zero-shot evaluation protocols, which assess the intrinsic quality of learned representations without task-specific fine-tuning [27]. This approach tests the fundamental biological knowledge captured during pretraining on repository data. Additionally, ontology-informed metrics such as scGraph-OntoRWR (which measures consistency of cell type relationships with prior biological knowledge) and Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD, which measures ontological proximity between misclassified cell types) provide biologically meaningful assessment beyond technical performance [27].

To mitigate data leakage concerns, benchmarks should incorporate independent validation datasets not used during model training, such as the Asian Immune Diversity Atlas (AIDA) v2 from CellxGene [27]. Performance should be evaluated across challenging real-world scenarios including novel cell type identification, cross-tissue homogeneity, and intra-tumor heterogeneity [27].

Performance Comparison of Single-Cell Foundation Models

Experimental benchmarking of leading scFMs reveals distinct performance profiles across different task types. The following table summarizes quantitative results from comprehensive evaluations:

Table 2: Single-Cell Foundation Model Performance Comparison

Model Name	Parameters	Pretraining Dataset Scale	Gene Embedding Strategy	Top-performing Tasks	Key Limitations
Geneformer [27]	40M	30 million cells	Lookup Table	Cell type annotation, Network analysis	Limited to scRNA-seq data
scGPT [27]	50M	33 million cells	Lookup Table + Value binning	Multi-omics integration, Batch correction	Computationally intensive
UCE [27]	650M	36 million cells	Protein embedding from ESM-2	Cross-species transfer learning	Complex embedding scheme
scFoundation [27]	100M	50 million cells	Lookup Table + Value projection	Large-scale pattern recognition	High memory requirements
LangCell [27]	40M	27.5 million cell-text pairs	Lookup Table	Text-integration tasks	Requires curated text labels
scCello [27]	Information missing	Information missing	Information missing	Developmental trajectory inference	Specialized scope

Notably, benchmarking results demonstrate that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the need for task-specific model selection [27]. Simple machine learning models sometimes outperform complex foundation models, particularly in dataset-specific applications with limited resources [27]. The roughness index (ROGI), which measures landscape complexity in latent space, can serve as a proxy for model selection in dataset-dependent applications [27].

Figure 2: Single-Cell Foundation Model Workflow. The diagram illustrates the standard processing pipeline for scFMs, from raw repository data through tokenization, model architecture, pretraining, and application to downstream tasks.

Specialized Repository Types and Their Research Applications

Molecular and Cellular Data Repositories

Molecular and cellular repositories provide the essential data infrastructure for foundational research in bioinformatics and systems biology. These resources vary in scope from comprehensive genomic databases to specialized collections focusing on specific biological entities or processes.

Table 3: Specialized Biological Data Repositories

Repository Name	Primary Content	Data Types	Key Features	Research Applications
STRING [30]	Protein-protein associations	Functional, physical, and regulatory networks	Confidence scoring, Cross-species transfer, Network clustering	Pathway analysis, Functional annotation, Network medicine
CellFinder [31]	Mammalian cell characterization	3,394 cell types, 50,951 cell lines, Images, Expression data	Ontology-based integration, Developmental trees, Body browser	Cell type identification, Developmental biology, Disease modeling
GravyTrain [32]	Yeast genetic constructs	Gene deletion and tagging constructs	Modular cloning scheme, Restriction-free shuffling	Molecular cell biology, Autophagy studies, Genomic modifications
BRENDA [29]	Enzyme information	Functional parameters, Organism data, Reaction specifics	Comprehensive coverage, Kinetic data, Taxonomic classification	Metabolic engineering, Enzyme discovery, Biochemical research
UniProt [29]	Protein sequences and functional information	Sequences, Functional annotations, Structural data	Manual curation, Comparative analysis, Disease associations	Protein function prediction, Phylogenetics, Drug target identification
ENA/GenBank/DDBJ [29]	Nucleotide sequences	Raw sequences, Assemblies, Annotations	International collaboration, Standardized formats, Cross-references	Genomic analysis, Comparative genomics, Phylogenetic studies

Protocol: Utilizing STRING Database for Protein Network Analysis

The STRING database exemplifies how integrated repositories enable sophisticated biological analyses. Below is a detailed protocol for employing STRING in protein network analysis:

Experimental Objective: To identify and characterize functional association networks for a set of proteins of interest using evidence-integration approaches.

Methodology:

• Input Preparation: Compile a list of protein identifiers (genes, UniProt IDs, or amino acid sequences) for proteins of interest.
• Network Retrieval: Access the STRING database (https://string-db.org/) and input target proteins, selecting the appropriate organism and required confidence score threshold (default: 0.70).
• Evidence Channel Configuration: Enable/disable specific evidence channels based on research needs: genomic context (neighborhood, fusion, co-occurrence), co-expression, experimental data, curated databases, and text mining [30].
• Network Type Selection: Choose between functional, physical, or regulatory network modes based on research questions [30].
• Analysis Execution:
  • Apply hierarchical clustering to identify functional modules within the network.
  • Perform pathway enrichment analysis using STRING's precomputed functional modules or external ontologies.
  • For regulatory networks, examine interaction directionality extracted through fine-tuned language models [30].
• Result Interpretation:
  • Examine confidence scores representing estimated likelihood of associations.
  • Review evidence viewers for underlying support of specific interactions.
  • Export network embeddings for machine learning applications [30].

Technical Considerations: The confidence scoring system integrates evidence from multiple channels probabilistically, assuming channel independence [30]. For physical interactions, dedicated language models detect supporting evidence in literature [30]. Cross-species transfers use interolog predictions based on evolutionary relationships [30].

Research Reagent Solutions for Repository-Driven Science

The effective utilization of biological repositories requires both computational tools and experimental reagents designed for systematic biological investigation.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources

Resource Name	Type	Function	Application Context	Key Features
GravyTrain Toolbox [32]	Molecular constructs	Genomic modifications in yeast	Yeast genetics, Molecular cell biology	Modular cloning, Restriction-free shuffling, Comprehensive tag collection
pYM Plasmid Library [32]	Molecular biology	Genomic modification in yeast	Protein tagging, Gene deletion	Standardized S1/S2/S3/S4 adapters, Homology-based integration
AID* Tag [32]	Degradation tag	Auxin-induced protein degradation	Protein function analysis	Transient, quantitative depletion, SCFTIR1-mediated ubiquitination
TurboID [32]	Proximity labeling	Identification of protein interactions	Interactome mapping	proximity-based biotinylation, Mass spectrometry analysis
TAP Tag [32]	Affinity tag	Protein purification and detection	Protein characterization	Tandem affinity purification, Multiple detection modalities
scFMs (Geneformer, scGPT, etc.) [27] [28]	Computational models	Single-cell data analysis	Cellular heterogeneity studies, Drug response prediction	Transfer learning, Zero-shot capability, Multi-task adaptation

Molecular, cellular, and textual repositories form the essential foundation upon which modern bioinformatics research is built. As foundation models become increasingly central to biological discovery, the symbiotic relationship between curated data resources and analytical algorithms will continue to intensify. The experimental comparisons presented in this guide demonstrate that repository selection directly influences research outcomes, with different resource types offering complementary strengths and limitations. Future developments will likely focus on enhancing repository interoperability, improving metadata standards, and developing more sophisticated benchmarking frameworks that better capture biological plausibility beyond technical performance metrics. Researchers are advised to maintain current knowledge of evolving repository capabilities and to select resources based on both current needs and anticipated future requirements as the field of data-driven biology continues to mature.

From Sequence to Function: Methodological Advances and Domain-Specific Applications

Tokenization, the process of converting raw biological data into discrete computational units, serves as the foundational step for applying deep learning in bioinformatics. The performance of foundation models on tasks ranging from gene annotation to protein structure prediction is profoundly influenced by the chosen tokenization strategy. Unlike natural language, biological sequences and structures lack inherent delimiters like spaces or punctuation, making the development of effective tokenization methods a significant research challenge [33] [34]. Current approaches have evolved beyond naive character-level tokenization to include sophisticated data-driven methods that capture biologically meaningful patterns, though significant work remains in developing techniques that fully encapsulate the complex semantics of biological data [34] [35]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of tokenization strategies across genomic, protein, and single-cell modalities, offering experimental data and methodologies to inform researchers and drug development professionals in selecting optimal approaches for their specific applications.

Tokenization Approaches Across Biological Modalities

Genomic Sequence Tokenization

Genomic tokenization strategies have evolved from simple nucleotide-based approaches to more sophisticated methods that capture biological context. The table below compares the primary tokenization methods used for DNA sequence analysis:

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Genomic Tokenization Strategies

Tokenization Method	Vocabulary Size	Sequence Length Reduction	Biological Interpretability	Key Applications	Notable Models
Nucleotide (Character-level)	4-5 tokens (A,C,G,T,N)	None (1:1 mapping)	Low	Basic sequence analysis	Enformer, HyenaDNA
Fixed k-mer	4k tokens	~k-fold reduction	Medium (captures motifs)	Sequence classification	DNABERT, Nucleotide Transformer
Overlapping k-mer	4k tokens	Minimal reduction	High (preserves context)	Regulatory element prediction	DNABERT, SpliceBERT
Data-driven (BPE/WordPiece)	Configurable (typically 512-4096)	2-4 fold reduction	Variable (learned patterns)	General-purpose genomics	DNABERT-2
Codon-based	64 tokens (sense codons)	3-fold reduction	High (biological relevance)	Coding sequence analysis	GenSLM

Fixed k-mer tokenization, which breaks sequences into contiguous segments of k nucleotides, provides a balance between vocabulary size and biological meaning, with 6-mers being a popular choice as they approximate transcription factor binding site lengths [34]. Overlapping k-mers, as implemented in DNABERT, extend this approach by creating sliding windows across sequences, preserving contextual information crucial for tasks like splice site prediction [34]. More advanced data-driven approaches like Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) and WordPiece adapt to specific datasets by iteratively merging frequent nucleotide pairs, resulting in vocabulary items of varying lengths that capture repetitive elements and common motifs [33] [36]. Experimental evidence demonstrates that applying these alternative tokenization algorithms can increase model accuracy while substantially reducing input sequence length compared to character-level tokenization [33].

Protein Representation Tokenization

Protein tokenization encompasses both sequence-based and structure-based approaches, each with distinct advantages and limitations:

Table 2: Protein Tokenization Methods and Performance Characteristics

Tokenization Method	Input Modality	Vocabulary Size	Reconstruction Accuracy	Information Retention	Representative Models
Amino Acid (Residue-level)	Sequence	20-25 tokens (standard aa + special)	N/A	High sequential information	ESM, ProtTrans
Subword BPE	Sequence	Configurable (256-1024)	N/A	Medium-High (balances granularity & context)	ESM-2, ProGen
VQ-VAE Structure Tokens	3D Structure	512-4096 tokens	1-2 Ã… RMSD	High local structural information	ESM3, AminoAseed
Inverse Folding-based	3D Structure	20-64 tokens	Variable	High sequence-structure relationship	ProteinMPNN
All-Atom Vocabulary	3D Structure	1024+ tokens	<2 Ã… scale accuracy	Comprehensive structural details	CHEAP

For protein sequences, subword tokenization methods like Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) have demonstrated effectiveness by creating meaningful fragments that capture conserved domains and motifs [33]. For structural representation, Vector Quantized Variational Autoencoders (VQ-VAEs) have emerged as powerful approaches, compressing local 3D structures into discrete tokens via a learnable codebook [37] [38]. The StructTokenBench framework provides comprehensive evaluation of these methods, revealing that Inverse-Folding-based tokenizers excel in downstream effectiveness while methods like ProTokens achieve superior sensitivity in capturing structural variations [37]. Recent innovations like the AminoAseed tokenizer address critical challenges like codebook under-utilization (a problem where up to 70% of codes in ESM3 remain inactive), achieving a 124.03% improvement in codebook utilization rate and 6.31% average performance gain across 24 supervised tasks compared to ESM3 [37] [38].

Single-Cell Data Tokenization

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) employ distinct tokenization strategies to represent gene expression profiles:

Table 3: Tokenization Approaches in Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Tokenization Strategy	Gene Ordering	Value Representation	Positional Encoding	Pretraining Data Scale
Geneformer	Rank-based (top 2,048 genes)	Expression magnitude	Order as value embedding	Standard transformer	30 million cells
scGPT	HVG-based (top 1,200 genes)	Not ordered	Value binning	Not used	33 million cells
scBERT	Bin-based expression	Expression categories	Binned expression	Standard transformer	10+ million cells
UCE	Non-unique sampling	Genomic position	Expression threshold	Genomic position	36 million cells
scFoundation	Comprehensive (all ~19k genes)	Not ordered	Value projection	Not used	50 million cells

A fundamental challenge in single-cell tokenization is that gene expression data lacks natural ordering, unlike sequential language data [28] [27]. To address this, models employ various gene ordering strategies, with expression-level ranking being particularly common. In this approach, genes are sorted by expression magnitude within each cell, creating a deterministic sequence for transformer processing [28]. Alternative strategies include genomic position ordering (leveraging the physical arrangement of genes on chromosomes) and value-based binning (categorizing expression levels) [27]. Benchmark studies reveal that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the need for tokenization selection tailored to specific applications like cell type annotation versus drug response prediction [27].

Experimental Protocols and Performance Benchmarks

Evaluation Framework for Biological Tokenizers

Rigorous evaluation frameworks are essential for comparing tokenization strategies. The StructTokenBench framework for protein structure tokenizers assesses four key perspectives:

• Downstream Effectiveness: Performance on supervised tasks like function prediction and stability assessment
• Sensitivity: Ability to detect subtle structural variations
• Distinctiveness: Capacity to generate diverse representations for different structures
• Codebook Utilization Efficiency: Proportion of actively used tokens in the vocabulary [37] [38]

For genomic tokenizers, standard evaluation protocols involve measuring performance on tasks including protein function prediction, protein stability assessment, nucleotide sequence alignment, and protein family classification [33]. Single-cell tokenizers are typically assessed through cell type annotation accuracy, batch integration effectiveness, and drug sensitivity prediction [27].

Diagram 1: Protein Structure Tokenization Evaluation Workflow

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Experimental results provide critical insights into tokenizer performance across biological domains:

Table 4: Experimental Results for Different Tokenization Strategies

Tokenization Method	Task	Performance Metric	Result	Sequence Length Reduction	Key Findings
BPE (Biological)	Protein Function Prediction	Accuracy	+5.8% vs baseline	3.2x reduction	Captures functional domains effectively [33]
AminoAseed (VQ-VAE)	24 Supervised Protein Tasks	Average Performance	+6.31% vs ESM3	N/A	124.03% higher codebook utilization [37]
DNABERT-2 (BPE)	Genome Annotation	F1 Score	0.89	3-4x reduction	Outforms overlapping k-mer on regulatory tasks [34]
Overlapping k-mer (DNABERT)	Splice Site Prediction	Accuracy	0.94	Minimal reduction	Excellent for precise boundary detection [34]
scGPT (Value Binning)	Cell Type Annotation	Accuracy	0.87 (zero-shot)	N/A	Robust across tissue types [27]
Inter-Chrom (Dynamic)	Chromatin Interaction	AUROC	0.92	Configurable	Superior to SPEID, PEP [36]

For genomic tasks, data-driven tokenizers like BPE demonstrate significant advantages. On eight different biological tasks, alternative tokenization algorithms increased accuracy while achieving a 3-fold decrease in token sequence length when trained on large-scale datasets containing over 400 billion amino acids [33]. The dynamic tokenization approach in Inter-Chrom, which extracts top-k words based on length and frequency for both DNA strands, outperformed existing methods for chromatin interaction prediction by effectively capturing both ubiquitous features and unique sequence specificity [36].

Implementation Guide: Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of biological tokenization strategies requires specific computational tools and resources:

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents for Biological Tokenization

Reagent/Tool	Type	Primary Function	Application Context	Availability
SentencePiece	Software Library	Unsupervised tokenization	DNA sequence tokenization	Open source
Hugging Face Tokenizers	Software Library	BPE, WordPiece implementation	General biological sequences	Open source
StructTokenBench	Evaluation Framework	Protein tokenizer benchmarking	Comparative analysis	GitHub
BiologicalTokenizers	Trained Models	Pre-trained biological tokenizers	Transfer learning	GitHub [33]
ESMFold	Protein Language Model	Structure embedding source	CHEAP embeddings	Academic license
CHEAP Embeddings	Compressed Representation	Joint sequence-structure tokens	Multi-modal protein analysis	Upon request [39]
scGPT	Single-Cell Foundation Model	Gene expression tokenization	Cell-level analysis	GitHub
DNABERT	Genomic Language Model	k-mer-based tokenization	DNA sequence analysis	GitHub

Tokenization strategies represent a critical frontier in bioinformatics foundation models, with significant implications for model performance, computational efficiency, and biological interpretability. Current evidence suggests that data-driven approaches like BPE and VQ-VAE generally outperform fixed strategies across diverse biological tasks, offering better sequence compression while maintaining or enhancing predictive accuracy [33] [37]. However, the optimal tokenization strategy remains highly context-dependent, with factors including data type (sequence vs. structure), task requirements (classification vs. generation), and computational constraints influencing selection.

Future developments will likely focus on multi-modal tokenization that jointly represents sequence, structure, and functional annotations [39], improved codebook utilization in VQ-VAE approaches [37], and biologically constrained tokenization that incorporates prior knowledge about molecular interactions and pathways. As the field matures, standardized evaluation frameworks like StructTokenBench will become increasingly important for objective comparison and strategic development of tokenization methods that fully leverage the complex, hierarchical nature of biological systems.

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative paradigm in computational biology, leveraging large-scale deep learning to interpret the complex language of cellular function. Defined as large-scale models pretrained on vast and diverse single-cell datasets, scFMs utilize self-supervised learning to develop a fundamental understanding of gene relationships and cellular states that can be adapted to numerous downstream biological tasks [28]. The rapid accumulation of public single-cell data—with archives like CZ CELLxGENE now providing access to over 100 million unique cells—has created the essential training corpus for these models [28]. Inspired by the success of transformer architectures in natural language processing, researchers have begun developing scFMs that treat individual cells as "sentences" and genes as "words," enabling the models to learn the syntactic and semantic rules governing cellular identity and function [28].

This comparison guide examines the current landscape of scFMs within the broader context of evaluating foundation models in bioinformatics research. As the field experiences rapid growth with numerous models being developed, a critical crisis of fragmentation has emerged—dozens of models with similar capabilities but unclear differentiation [40]. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals navigating this complex ecosystem, understanding the relative strengths, limitations, and appropriate applications of available scFMs becomes essential for advancing biological discovery and translational applications.

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Leading scFMs

Evaluation Methodology and Benchmarking Frameworks

Comprehensive benchmarking studies have employed rigorous methodologies to evaluate scFM performance across diverse biological tasks. The most robust evaluations assess models in zero-shot settings (without task-specific fine-tuning) to genuinely measure their foundational biological understanding [27] [10]. Benchmarking frameworks typically evaluate performance across multiple task categories:

• Gene-level tasks: Gene function prediction, gene-gene relationship modeling
• Cell-level tasks: Cell type annotation, batch integration, clustering
• Clinical prediction tasks: Drug sensitivity prediction, cancer cell identification

These evaluations employ a range of metrics including traditional clustering metrics, novel biological relevance metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR (which measures consistency of cell type relationships with biological knowledge), and LCAD (Lowest Common Ancestor Distance) which quantifies the severity of cell type misannotation errors [27]. Performance is typically compared against traditional bioinformatics methods like Seurat, Harmony, and scVI to determine whether the complexity of scFMs provides tangible benefits [27].

Performance Across Biological Tasks

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Major scFMs Across Task Categories

Model	Pretraining Data	Architecture	Cell Type Annotation	Batch Integration	Perturbation Prediction	Gene Function
scGPT	33M cells [27]	Transformer Decoder [28]	Strong [41]	Robust [42]	Strong [42]	Excellent [41]
Geneformer	30M cells [27]	Transformer Encoder [28]	Moderate [10]	Variable [5]	Strong [43]	Excellent [41]
scFoundation	50M cells [27]	Asymmetric Encoder-Decoder [27]	Moderate [27]	Moderate [27]	Good [27]	Strong [41]
UCE	36M cells [27]	Transformer Encoder [27]	Moderate [27]	Moderate [27]	Not Reported	Strong [27]
scBERT	Not Specified	Transformer Encoder [28]	Limited [41]	Limited [41]	Limited [41]	Limited [41]
Traditional Methods (Seurat, Harmony, scVI)	N/A	N/A	Variable [10]	Strong [10]	Specialized Approaches Required	Limited Capabilities

Table 2: Computational Requirements and Specialized Capabilities

Model	Parameters	Hardware Requirements	Multimodal Support	Spatial Transcriptomics	Cross-Species
scGPT	50M [27]	High GPU memory [42]	scATAC-seq, CITE-seq [28]	Supported [28]	Limited reporting
Geneformer	40M [27]	Moderate GPU [10]	scRNA-seq only [27]	Not native	Limited reporting
scFoundation	100M [27]	High GPU memory [27]	scRNA-seq focus [27]	Limited reporting	Limited reporting
UCE	650M [27]	Very High GPU memory [27]	scRNA-seq only [27]	Not reported	Not reported
scPlantFormer	Not specified	Moderate [42]	Plant omics [42]	Limited reporting	Excellent [42]
Nicheformer	Not specified	Very High [42]	Spatial focus [42]	Specialized [42]	Limited reporting

Independent benchmarking reveals that no single scFM consistently outperforms all others across diverse tasks [27]. scGPT demonstrates robust performance across most applications, particularly excelling in cell type annotation and perturbation response prediction [41] [42]. Geneformer and scFoundation show particular strength in gene-level tasks, benefiting from their effective pretraining strategies [41]. However, evaluations have uncovered a significant limitation: in zero-shot settings, many scFMs underperform compared to traditional methods like scVI or even simple highly variable genes selection [5] [10].

Experimental Protocols for scFM Evaluation

For researchers seeking to reproduce or extend these evaluations, the following experimental protocols are essential:

Zero-Shot Cell Type Annotation Protocol:

• Embedding Extraction: Process query cells through scFM without fine-tuning to obtain latent embeddings [10]
• Clustering: Apply standard clustering algorithms (e.g., Louvain, Leiden) to embeddings
• Label Transfer: Map clusters to reference cell types using marker genes or automated annotation tools
• Evaluation: Calculate metrics comparing to ground truth labels, with special attention to biological plausibility of errors using LCAD [27]

Batch Integration Assessment:

• Dataset Selection: Curate datasets with known batch effects and biological ground truth [10]
• Embedding Generation: Process batched data through scFM to obtain integrated embeddings
• Batch Mixing Assessment: Quantify with metrics like ASW (average silhouette width) for batch versus biological grouping
• Biological Preservation: Evaluate conservation of known biological cell groups post-integration

Gene Function Prediction Evaluation:

• Masking Strategy: Mask specific gene expressions in input data
• Prediction: Recover masked values using model's understanding of gene relationships [10]
• Validation: Compare predictions to held-out true values and known biological pathways

Technical Architectures and Implementation Considerations

Model Architectures and Training Approaches

scFMs predominantly utilize transformer architectures, but with significant variations in implementation:

Tokenization Strategies:

• Gene Ranking: Many models (Geneformer, LangCell) rank genes by expression level to create ordered sequences from inherently non-sequential data [28] [27]
• Value Binning: scGPT discretizes expression values into bins, combining gene identity and expression level information [27]
• Protein Embeddings: UCE incorporates protein sequence information via ESM-2 embeddings, connecting transcriptomics with proteomics [27]

Architectural Variations:

• Encoder Models (e.g., Geneformer): Use bidirectional attention, ideal for classification tasks and embedding generation [28]
• Decoder Models (e.g., scGPT): Employ masked self-attention, better suited for generative tasks [28]
• Hybrid Architectures: Newer models explore encoder-decoder combinations for enhanced flexibility [28]

Pretraining Objectives:

• Masked Gene Modeling: Most models predict masked/hidden genes based on context, analogous to masked language modeling in NLP [28]
• Multi-task Learning: Advanced models incorporate additional objectives like cell state prediction and contrastive learning [42]

scFM Architecture Workflow

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources for scFM Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Datasets	Function/Purpose	Access Considerations
Data Repositories	CZ CELLxGENE [28], Human Cell Atlas [28], PanglaoDB [28]	Provide standardized single-cell datasets for training and benchmarking	Public access with standardized annotation formats
Pretrained Models	scGPT, Geneformer, scFoundation [41]	Enable transfer learning without costly pretraining	Varied licensing; some models not publicly available [5]
Evaluation Frameworks	BioLLM [41], scGraph-OntoRWR [27]	Standardized benchmarking and biological relevance assessment	Open-source frameworks emerging
Computational Infrastructure	GPUs ( NVIDIA A100/H100), High-Memory Servers	Handle large model parameters and massive single-cell datasets	Significant resource requirements for full model training
Visualization Tools	CellxGene Explorer [28], UCSC Cell Browser	Interactive exploration of model outputs and cell embeddings	Web-based and local deployment options

Interpretation and Biological Validation

A critical challenge in scFM applications is the interpretability of model predictions. Traditional methods like differential gene expression analysis provide directly interpretable results, while scFMs operate as "black boxes" [43]. Recent advances in mechanistic interpretability are addressing this limitation:

Transcoder-Based Circuit Analysis:

• Trains sparse autoencoders to decompose model internals into interpretable components [43]
• Identifies "circuits" within the model that correspond to real biological pathways
• Has been successfully applied to cell2sentence models to extract biologically plausible regulatory networks [43]

Attention Mechanism Analysis:

• Analyzes attention patterns to identify genes with strong influence on predictions
• Can reveal hierarchical gene relationships learned by the model

Biological Ground-Truth Validation:

• Correlates model-derived relationships with established knowledge bases (Gene Ontology, KEGG)
• Uses metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR to quantify biological consistency [27]

scFM Interpretation Workflow

Practical Implementation Guidelines

Model Selection Framework

Choosing the appropriate scFM requires consideration of multiple factors:

Task-Specific Selection:

• Cell Type Annotation: scGPT generally performs well, but traditional methods may suffice for well-characterized systems [41] [10]
• Perturbation Modeling: Geneformer and scGPT show strong capabilities [43] [42]
• Batch Integration: Traditional methods (Harmony, scVI) often outperform scFMs in zero-shot settings [10]
• Gene Function Analysis: scGPT, Geneformer, and scFoundation excel at gene-level tasks [41]

Resource-Aware Decision Making:

• Limited Computational Resources: Consider smaller models or traditional methods
• Large, Diverse Datasets: scFMs provide greater benefits with increasing data complexity [27]
• Multimodal Data: Select models with specific multimodal capabilities (e.g., scGPT for multiome data) [28]

Biological Context Considerations:

• Cross-Species Applications: scPlantFormer demonstrates excellent cross-species transfer in plants [42]
• Specialized Tissues: Consider models trained on relevant tissues or cell types
• Novel Cell Type Discovery: scFMs show promise for identifying rare or previously uncharacterized cell states [27]

Future Directions and Development Trends

The scFM landscape is evolving rapidly, with several clear trends emerging:

Architectural Innovations:

• Hybrid models combining transformers with other architectures (e.g., scMonica's LSTM-transformer fusion) [42]
• State-space models (e.g., SC-MAMBA2) for more efficient sequence modeling [42]
• Lightweight adaptations (e.g., CellPatch) reducing computational requirements by up to 80% [42]

Evaluation Standardization:

• Frameworks like BioLLM providing unified interfaces for model comparison [41]
• Novel biological relevance metrics moving beyond technical benchmarks
• Increased focus on zero-shot evaluation to assess true biological understanding [10]

Clinical Translation:

• Specialized models for drug sensitivity prediction and cancer cell identification [27]
• Integration with electronic health records and clinical metadata
• Federated learning approaches for privacy-preserving model training on sensitive clinical data [42]

Single-cell foundation models represent a promising but maturing technology in the bioinformatics landscape. While they have demonstrated impressive capabilities in specific applications like gene function prediction and perturbation modeling, their performance in zero-shot settings often lags behind traditional, simpler methods for tasks like cell type annotation and batch integration [27] [10]. The current ecosystem is fragmented, with no single model dominating across all tasks, necessitating careful selection based on specific research needs, available computational resources, and task requirements [27] [40].

For researchers and drug development professionals, scFMs offer greatest value when applied to complex problems involving large, diverse datasets where their pretrained knowledge of gene relationships provides tangible benefits. As the field moves toward standardized evaluation, improved interpretability, and more efficient architectures, scFMs have the potential to fundamentally transform how we extract biological insights from single-cell data. However, their adoption should be guided by rigorous benchmarking against traditional methods rather than unquestioned acceptance of their proposed capabilities.

DNA foundation models represent a transformative shift in bioinformatics, applying the principles of large language models to genomic sequences. These models, pre-trained on vast corpora of DNA data, learn the fundamental "grammar" and "syntax" of genomic sequences, enabling them to generate novel DNA sequences and predict diverse genomic properties with minimal additional training [44]. The field is advancing rapidly, with frontier models like Arc Institute's Evo2 (40B parameters) and DeepMind's AlphaGenome (450M parameters) demonstrating remarkable capabilities in processing context windows of up to 1 million nucleotides and generating sequences with specific epigenetic properties [44]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of current DNA foundation models, their performance across standardized benchmarks, and experimental protocols for their evaluation—essential knowledge for researchers and drug development professionals navigating this evolving landscape.

Comparative Analysis of Leading DNA Foundation Models

Model Architectures and Technical Specifications

DNA foundation models employ diverse architectural strategies to tackle the unique challenges of genomic sequences, including extreme length, bidirectional context, and specialized structural properties like reverse complement symmetry.

Table 1: Architectural Comparison of Major DNA Foundation Models

Model	Architecture	Parameters	Context Length	Tokenization	Training Data
Evo2	StripedHyena (convolution + attention)	40B	1M nucleotides	Nucleotide-level	9T base pairs across all domains of life
AlphaGenome	Encoder-decoder (convolution + transformer)	450M	1M nucleotides	Nucleotide-level	Multimodal data (RNA-seq, DNA sequences, Hi-C maps)
DNABERT-2	Transformer with ALiBi	117M	Flexible (quadratic cost)	Byte Pair Encoding	135 species including human reference genome
Nucleotide Transformer v2	Transformer with rotary embeddings	500M (model discussed)	12,000 nucleotides	6-mer sliding window	850 species including human genomes
HyenaDNA	Hyena operators (long convolutions)	~30M	1M nucleotides	Nucleotide-level	Human reference genome

Beyond architectural differences, these models employ distinct generation approaches. Evo2 primarily uses autoregressive sampling (GPT-style), while other models explore diffusion sampling or Dirichlet flow matching (DFM). DFM shows particular promise for constrained sequence generation as it enables smoother diffusion processes and allows guidance models to steer all positions in the sequence simultaneously [44].

Performance Benchmarking Across Genomic Tasks

Classification Task Performance

Independent benchmarking studies provide crucial insights into model performance across diverse genomic tasks. A comprehensive evaluation of zero-shot embeddings across 57 real datasets revealed distinct model strengths depending on the application context [45] [46].

Table 2: Performance Specialization Across Model Types

Task Domain	Best Performing Model	Key Strength	Performance Notes
Human genome tasks	DNABERT-2	Most consistent performance	excels in regulatory element identification
Epigenetic modification detection	Nucleotide Transformer v2	Highest accuracy	particularly effective for methylation site prediction
Long-range dependency tasks	HyenaDNA	Runtime scalability	maintains performance with sequences up to 1M nucleotides
Multi-species generalization	Nucleotide Transformer v2	Cross-species adaptation	benefits from training on 850 diverse species

The benchmarking also revealed that using mean token embedding consistently improved performance across all three models (DNABERT-2, NT-v2, and HyenaDNA) compared to the default sentence-level summary token embedding, with average AUC improvements ranging from 4.3% to 9.7% [46]. This finding provides a practical optimization strategy for researchers applying these models.

Long-Range Dependency Challenges

The DNALONGBENCH suite—specifically designed to evaluate long-range dependency capture—assessed models across five critical tasks: enhancer-target gene interaction, expression quantitative trait loci, 3D genome organization, regulatory sequence activity, and transcription initiation signals [47]. The results revealed important limitations in current foundation models.

In these demanding long-range tasks, specialized expert models consistently outperformed DNA foundation models. For example, in contact map prediction (3D genome organization), foundation models struggled significantly compared to task-optimized architectures like Akita [47]. Similarly, for transcription initiation signal prediction, the expert model Puffin achieved an average score of 0.733, dramatically outperforming HyenaDNA (0.132) and Caduceus variants (approximately 0.109) [47]. This performance gap highlights that while foundation models offer impressive generality, domain-specific architectures still maintain advantages for specialized genomic prediction tasks.

Experimental Benchmarking Methodologies

Standardized Evaluation Protocols

To ensure fair comparisons across DNA foundation models, researchers have established rigorous benchmarking methodologies that evaluate both zero-shot capabilities and fine-tuned performance.

Diagram 1: Experimental benchmarking workflow for DNA foundation models

Zero-Shot Embedding Evaluation

The most unbiased approach for evaluating foundational capabilities involves analyzing zero-shot embeddings without fine-tuning. The standard protocol involves:

• Embedding Extraction: Frozen pre-trained models generate embeddings from input DNA sequences, typically using the last hidden states [46].
• Feature Processing: Both sentence-level summary tokens and mean token embeddings are evaluated, with research indicating mean token embeddings generally provide superior performance [46].
• Downstream Classification: Efficient tree-based models (like Random Forests or XGBoost) trained on these embeddings predict genomic labels, enabling comprehensive hyperparameter search while minimizing inductive biases [46].

This approach accurately reflects the models' inherent understanding of DNA sequences without confounding factors introduced by fine-tuning procedures.

Fine-Tuning Evaluation

For application-specific performance assessment, fine-tuning evaluation follows these protocols:

• Parameter-Efficient Methods: Techniques like adapters or LoRA are preferred, with some studies updating only 0.1% of total parameters while maintaining competitive performance [9].
• Task-Specific Heads: Model heads are replaced with classification or regression heads appropriate for the target task.
• Cross-Validation: Rigorous k-fold cross-validation (typically 10-fold) ensures statistically robust performance estimates [9].

Fine-tuning typically yields superior task-specific performance compared to probing approaches, though it requires more computational resources and introduces additional hyperparameters [9].

Critical Benchmarking Datasets

The selection of appropriate datasets is crucial for meaningful model comparisons. Key benchmarking resources include:

• DNALONGBENCH: The most comprehensive benchmark for long-range dependencies, covering five tasks with sequences up to 1 million base pairs [47].
• Genomic Benchmarks: Collections of 18+ datasets focusing on regulatory element prediction, including splice sites, promoters, histone modifications, and enhancers [9].
• BEND: Focused on enhancer annotation and gene finding with long-range context [47].
• Specialized Collections: For epigenetic modification detection, datasets spanning multiple species for 4mc site identification are available [46].

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools for DNA Foundation Models

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for DNA Foundation Model Implementation

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access Information
DNALONGBENCH	Benchmark dataset	Standardized evaluation of long-range dependency modeling	Publicly available [47]
Evo2	DNA foundation model	Sequence generation and epigenetic property prediction	Open source [44]
AlphaGenome	DNA foundation model	Multimodal genomic track prediction across cell types	Open source [44]
Nucleotide Transformer	DNA foundation model	Cross-species genomic prediction	Multiple model sizes available [9]
HyenaDNA	DNA foundation model	Ultra-long sequence processing	Open source [45]
DNABERT-2	DNA foundation model	Human genome task optimization	Open source [46]
Caduceus	DNA foundation model	Reverse complement equivariant architecture	Open source [47]

Applications and Future Directions

Promising Research Applications

The practical applications of DNA foundation models are rapidly expanding across multiple domains:

• Therapeutic Promoter Design: Models can generate tissue-specific promoters for gene therapies (AAV vectors, CAR-T cells) by optimizing sequences for expression in target tissues while minimizing off-target activity [44]. AlphaGenome's ability to predict cell-specific chromatin accessibility, promoter marks, and transcription initiation enables designing promoters with reduced risk of T-cell exhaustion in CAR-T therapies [44].

• Variant Impact Scoring: Foundation models provide a novel approach for interpreting genetic variation at population scale. The Evo2 model has been used to systematically score functional impacts of variants and haplotypes in complex genomic regions like APOE, revealing ancestry-specific differences in Alzheimer's disease risk [48].

• Functional Genomics Prediction: Models fine-tuned on specific assay data can predict diverse molecular phenotypes including chromatin profiles, splice sites, and enhancer activities—often matching or surpassing specialized supervised models [9].

Technical Challenges and Research Frontiers

Despite rapid progress, significant challenges remain in DNA foundation model development:

Diagram 2: Challenges and future directions for DNA foundation models

Key technical challenges include capturing dependencies beyond the current 1 million nucleotide context window while preserving fine-grained local patterns—a fundamental architectural trade-off [44]. Biologically-informed architectures like Caduceus's reverse complement equivariance show promise for modeling DNA's inherent symmetries [44]. There remains a critical need for standardized benchmarking; while resources like DNALONGBENCH exist, no equivalent to NLP's METR leaderboard currently tracks model performance across the field [44] [47].

Future development will likely focus on multi-modal integration (combining DNA, RNA, and epigenetic data), establishing scaling laws for genomic data, and creating interactive benchmarking platforms that enable real-time model comparison. As these technical hurdles are addressed, DNA foundation models are poised to become increasingly indispensable tools for genomic research and therapeutic development.

The drug discovery process is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from traditional labor-intensive, trial-and-error approaches to artificial intelligence (AI)-driven methodologies that can dramatically compress development timelines and improve success rates. AI has evolved from an experimental curiosity to a tool of genuine clinical utility, with AI-designed therapeutics now advancing through human trials across diverse therapeutic areas [49]. This paradigm shift replaces human-driven workflows with AI-powered discovery engines capable of expanding chemical and biological search spaces while redefining the speed and scale of modern pharmacology [49]. By leveraging machine learning (ML), deep learning, and generative models, AI platforms are accelerating the identification of druggable targets and the design of novel molecular structures with optimized properties, offering the potential to address previously "undruggable" disease targets and reduce the typical 10-15 year drug development timeline [49] [50].

The integration of AI is particularly valuable in oncology, where tumor heterogeneity, resistance mechanisms, and complex microenvironmental factors present exceptional challenges for traditional drug discovery approaches [50]. This analysis evaluates the performance of leading AI platforms in target identification and molecular design, examining their technological approaches, experimental validation, and comparative strengths within the broader context of foundation models in bioinformatics research.

Comparative Analysis of Leading AI Drug Discovery Platforms

Platform Architectures and Methodological Approaches

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Leading AI Drug Discovery Platforms

Platform/Company	Core AI Approach	Key Technological Differentiators	Primary Applications	Reported Efficiency Gains
Exscientia [49]	Generative Chemistry + Patient-derived Biology	End-to-end platform integrating algorithmic design with automated synthesis and testing; "Centaur Chemist" approach	Immuno-oncology, Oncology, Inflammation	Design cycles ~70% faster; 10x fewer synthesized compounds [49]
Insilico Medicine [49]	Generative AI + Target Discovery	Generative adversarial networks (GANs) and reinforcement learning for de novo molecular design	Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, Oncology	Target-to-Preclinical Candidate: 18 months (vs. 3-6 years traditionally) [49]
Recursion [49]	Phenomics-First Systems + Cellular Imaging	High-content phenotypic screening of chemical perturbations on cellular morphology	Rare diseases, Oncology, Immunology	Massive scale cellular data generation for pattern detection
BenevolentAI [49]	Knowledge-Graph Repurposing	Semantically processed scientific literature and biomedical data integration	Glioblastoma, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Other complex diseases	Novel target identification through inferred relationships
Schrödinger [49]	Physics-ML Hybrid Design	Physics-based simulations combined with machine learning	TYK2 inhibitors for autoimmune diseases, Oncology	Accelerated lead optimization through precise binding affinity prediction
BoltzGen (MIT) [51]	Unified Structure Prediction & Design	Generalizable model for both structure prediction and protein binder generation	"Undruggable" disease targets	Generation of novel protein binders for challenging targets

Performance Metrics and Experimental Validation

Table 2: Documented Performance Metrics and Clinical Progress

Platform/Drug Candidate	Therapeutic Area	Development Stage	Reported Outcomes/Performance
Exscientia: DSP-1181 [49]	Obsessive Compulsive Disorder	Phase I (First AI-designed drug in trials)	Developed in 12 months (vs. 4-5 years traditionally)
Insilico: ISM001-055 [49]	Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis	Phase IIa (Positive results reported)	Target discovery to Phase I in 18 months
Schrödinger/Nimbus: TAK-279 [49]	Autoimmune Conditions	Phase III	Physics-enabled design strategy validation
Exscientia: GTAEXS-617 [49]	Solid Tumors	Phase I/II	CDK7 inhibitor; current focus post-prioritization
BoltzGen [51]	Multiple "undruggable" targets	Preclinical Research	Generated functional protein binders for 26 therapeutically relevant targets
Gubra: streaMLine [52]	Metabolic Diseases	Preclinical Research	AI-guided design of GLP-1 receptor agonists with improved selectivity and stability

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Target Identification and Validation

Target identification represents the foundational stage of drug discovery, involving the recognition of molecular entities that drive disease progression and can be modulated therapeutically [50]. AI-enabled platforms approach this challenge through several methodological frameworks:

• Multi-omics Integration: Machine learning algorithms integrate genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics data from sources like The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to identify hidden patterns and oncogenic drivers [50]. The standard protocol involves data preprocessing, feature selection using methods like LASSO regularization, and supervised learning with algorithms like random forest or XGBoost to rank target candidates by therapeutic potential [53].

• Knowledge-Graph Mining: Platforms like BenevolentAI create semantically processed knowledge graphs from scientific literature, clinical trial data, and biomedical databases to infer novel relationships and identify previously overlooked targets [49]. For example, this approach successfully predicted novel targets in glioblastoma by integrating transcriptomic and clinical data [50].

• Phenotypic Screening: Recursion's approach involves systematically perturbing human cells with chemical and genetic interventions, then imaging them to capture millions of cellular phenotypes [49]. Their AI models analyze these images to identify compounds that reverse disease phenotypes, then infer potential mechanisms of action.

Experimental Validation Protocol: Identified targets undergo rigorous validation through in silico benchmarking against known targets, in vitro assays using cell lines or patient-derived samples, and ex vivo validation. For instance, Exscientia's acquisition of Allcyte enabled high-content phenotypic screening of AI-designed compounds directly on patient tumor samples, enhancing translational relevance [49].

Molecular Design and Optimization

AI-driven molecular design employs generative models to create novel chemical structures with desired pharmacological properties:

• Generative Chemistry: Models like Exscientia's use deep learning trained on vast chemical libraries and experimental data to propose novel molecular structures satisfying specific target product profiles for potency, selectivity, and ADME properties [49]. The standard workflow involves conditioning generative models on target properties, generating candidate structures, and using discriminator networks to filter unrealistic molecules.

• Physics-ML Hybrid Approaches: Schrödinger's platform combines physics-based molecular simulations with machine learning to predict binding affinities and optimize lead compounds [49]. Their methodology applies molecular dynamics simulations and free energy perturbation calculations to refine AI-generated candidates.

• Protein-Specific Design: BoltzGen introduces a unified approach to protein binder generation, employing constraints informed by wet-lab collaborators to ensure generated proteins obey physical laws while maintaining functionality [51]. Their evaluation included 26 targets explicitly chosen for dissimilarity to training data, with wet-lab validation across eight independent laboratories.

Lead Optimization Protocol: AI platforms implement iterative design-make-test-analyze cycles where machine learning models predict compound properties, compounds are synthesized and tested, and results feedback to improve model predictions. Gubra's streaMLine platform exemplifies this approach, simultaneously optimizing for potency, selectivity, and stability through parallelized experimentation [52].

Visualization of AI-Driven Drug Discovery Workflows

AI-Driven Drug Discovery Workflow

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for AI-Enhanced Drug Discovery

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Function in Discovery Process
Data Resources	The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), UK Biobank, Clinical Trial Repositories	Provide structured multimodal data for model training and validation [50]
Computational Tools	AlphaFold, RFdiffusion, proteinMPNN, BoltzGen	Predict protein structures and generate compatible amino acid sequences [51] [52]
Experimental Systems	Patient-derived organoids, Cell lines, High-content screening platforms	Enable experimental validation of AI predictions in biologically relevant systems [49]
AI Platforms	Exscientia's Platform, Insilico Medicine's Generative Models, Gubra's streaMLine	Integrate AI capabilities for end-to-end drug discovery optimization [49] [52]
Analytical Frameworks	SHAP analysis, LASSO regularization, SMOTE oversampling	Interpret model predictions, select features, and address class imbalance [53]

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The comparative analysis reveals that while various AI platforms share the common goal of accelerating drug discovery, they employ distinct methodological approaches with complementary strengths. Generative chemistry platforms (Exscientia, Insilico Medicine) excel at rapid compound design, while phenomics-focused approaches (Recursion) offer unique insights into biological mechanisms. Knowledge-graph systems (BenevolentAI) leverage existing scientific knowledge efficiently, and physics-ML hybrids (Schrödinger) provide precise binding predictions.

Critical challenges remain in the field, including data quality and availability, model interpretability ("black box" problem), and the need for extensive experimental validation [50]. The high computational costs of sophisticated models and their associated latency present practical barriers to real-time application [54]. Significant concerns regarding bias and fairness have emerged, with studies showing performance degradation in some models when presented with racially biased questions [54]. Additionally, the translational gap between in silico predictions and clinical success remains substantial, with most AI-discovered drugs still in early-stage trials [49].

Future directions point toward increased integration of multimodal data, with foundation models capable of processing genomic, imaging, and clinical information simultaneously [55]. Federated learning approaches that train models across institutions without sharing raw data may help overcome privacy barriers while enhancing data diversity [50]. The emergence of open-source models like BoltzGen could disrupt traditional business models while accelerating innovation through broader community access [51]. As regulatory frameworks evolve to accommodate AI-driven development, the field moves closer to realizing AI's potential to deliver safer, more effective therapeutics to patients in significantly reduced timeframes.

The comprehensive understanding of complex biological systems requires moving beyond single-layer analysis to a holistic perspective. Multi-omics integration represents this paradigm shift, simultaneously analyzing diverse molecular datasets—including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics, and metabolomics—to reveal the complex interactions and networks underlying biological processes and diseases [56] [57]. This approach allows researchers to assess the flow of information from one omics level to another, effectively bridging the gap from genotype to phenotype [56]. The fundamental challenge lies in creating unified representations from these heterogeneous data modalities, which vary in measurement units, scale, and underlying distributions [58].

The emergence of foundation models—large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast datasets—has revolutionized data interpretation across multiple domains, including bioinformatics [1] [59] [28]. These models, adapted from natural language processing and computer vision, offer promising new capabilities for multi-omics integration through their ability to learn generalizable patterns from massive datasets and adapt to various downstream tasks with minimal fine-tuning [28]. However, their performance against traditional methods warrants careful examination, particularly given the unique challenges of biological data including batch effects, missing values, and high dimensionality [58] [60].

This comparison guide objectively evaluates current methodologies for multi-omics integration, with particular emphasis on the emerging role of foundation models relative to established computational approaches. By synthesizing experimental data and performance metrics across multiple studies, we provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with evidence-based insights for selecting appropriate integration strategies in systems biology research.

Comparative Analysis of Multi-Omics Integration Methods

Performance Benchmarking Across Method Categories

Multi-omics integration methods can be broadly categorized into foundation models, graph neural networks, and traditional machine learning approaches. The table below summarizes their comparative performance across key metrics based on published experimental results:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Multi-Omics Integration Methods

Method Category	Specific Method	Accuracy (%)	Data Retention	Handling Missing Data	Interpretability	Computational Efficiency
Foundation Models	scGPT (zero-shot)	<50 (cell typing) [10]	High (in theory)	Limited	Low	Low (training) / Moderate (inference)
Foundation Models	Geneformer (zero-shot)	<50 (cell typing) [10]	High (in theory)	Limited	Low	Low (training) / Moderate (inference)
Graph Neural Networks	GNNRAI	~72.4 (AD classification) [61]	High	Excellent (accommodates incomplete data)	High (with explainability methods)	Moderate
Graph Neural Networks	MOGONET	~70.2 (AD classification) [61]	High	Requires complete data	Moderate	Moderate
Traditional ML	scVI	>70 (cell typing) [10]	Moderate	Good	Moderate	High
Traditional ML	Harmony	>70 (cell typing) [10]	Moderate	Good	Moderate	High
Batch Correction	BERT (Batch-Effect Reduction Trees)	N/A (batch correction)	Excellent (retains all numeric values) [60]	Excellent (designed for incomplete data)	Moderate	High (up to 11× faster than HarmonizR) [60]

Foundation Models vs. Traditional Methods in Specific Biological Contexts

Experimental evaluations demonstrate that foundation models do not consistently outperform traditional methods across biological applications. In Alzheimer's disease classification using transcriptomics and proteomics data from the ROSMAP cohort, the graph neural network approach GNNRAI achieved approximately 2.2% higher validation accuracy compared to MOGONET across 16 biological domains [61]. This supervised framework, which integrates multi-omics data with prior knowledge represented as knowledge graphs, demonstrated particular effectiveness in balancing the greater predictive power of proteomics with the larger sample size available for transcriptomics.

In single-cell biology, foundation models have shown remarkable limitations in zero-shot settings. When evaluated on cell type clustering across five distinct datasets, both Geneformer and scGPT performed worse than conventional machine learning methods like scVI or statistical algorithms like Harmony [5] [10]. In some cases, these foundation models even underperformed compared to basic feature selection strategies using highly variable genes or untrained model versions initialized to random weights [10].

The performance gap appears to stem from fundamental limitations in how current foundation models learn biological relationships. Analysis of scGPT's ability to predict held-out gene expression revealed limited capability, with the model often predicting median expression values regardless of true expression levels rather than capturing deeper contextual relationships between genes [10].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Key Experimental Frameworks for Multi-Omics Integration

GNNRAI Framework for Supervised Integration

The GNNRAI (GNN-derived Representation Alignment and Integration) framework employs a structured approach to multi-omics integration:

• Graph Construction: Each sample's omics data is represented as multiple graphs, with nodes representing genes or proteins and edges based on prior biological knowledge from databases like Pathway Commons [61].
• Modality-Specific Processing: Separate graph neural networks process each omics modality to generate low-dimensional embeddings (16 dimensions in the ROSMAP implementation) [61].
• Representation Alignment: The modality-specific embeddings are aligned to enforce shared patterns across data types [61].
• Integration and Prediction: Aligned representations are integrated using a set transformer for final phenotype prediction [61].
• Biomarker Identification: Integrated gradients method is applied to identify informative features and biological interactions [61].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Omics Integration

Reagent/Resource	Type	Function	Example Sources
TCGA	Data Repository	Provides multi-omics data for >33 cancer types from 20,000 tumor samples [56] [58]	National Cancer Institute
ICGC	Data Repository	Coordinates genome studies from 76 cancer projects; contains germline and somatic mutation data [56]	International Consortium
CPTAC	Data Repository	Hosts proteomics data corresponding to TCGA cohorts [56]	National Cancer Institute
CCLE	Data Repository	Compilation of gene expression, copy number, and drug response data from 947 cancer cell lines [56]	Broad Institute
Pathway Commons	Knowledge Base	Provides biological pathway information for constructing prior knowledge graphs [61]	Computational Biology
AD Biodomains	Biological Domains	Functional units reflecting AD-associated endophenotypes for guided analysis [61]	Literature-Curated
ROSMAP Cohort	Study Data	Integrates transcriptomics and proteomics data from dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for Alzheimer's studies [61]	Religious Orders Study

Benchmarking Protocols for Multi-Omics Study Design

Comprehensive benchmarking studies have identified critical factors influencing multi-omics integration performance:

• Sample Size: Minimum of 26 samples per class recommended for robust cancer subtype discrimination [58].
• Feature Selection: Selecting less than 10% of omics features improves clustering performance by up to 34% [58].
• Class Balance: Maintain sample balance under a 3:1 ratio between classes [58].
• Noise Management: Keep noise levels below 30% for optimal performance [58].
• Batch Effect Correction: Methods like BERT (Batch-Effect Reduction Trees) retain significantly more numeric values (up to 5 orders of magnitude) compared to alternatives like HarmonizR while offering 11× runtime improvement [60].

GNNRAI Framework Workflow: This diagram illustrates the supervised integration of multi-omics data with biological priors using graph neural networks.

Evaluation Metrics and Methodological Considerations

Standardized evaluation protocols are essential for meaningful comparison across multi-omics integration methods:

• Clustering Performance: Measured using Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) and Average Silhouette Width (ASW) to assess sample separation quality [58] [60].
• Batch Effect Correction: Evaluated using ASW Batch scores to quantify technical bias removal [60].
• Biological Preservation: Assessed via ASW Label scores to ensure retention of biologically relevant patterns [60].
• Zero-Shot Capability: For foundation models, evaluation on unseen data without further training [10].
• Data Retention: Percentage of original numeric values preserved through integration process [60].

Technical Specifications and Implementation Requirements

Data Requirements and Processing Considerations

Successful multi-omics integration depends on careful attention to data quality and preparation:

• Data Compatibility: Ensure samples have at least partial overlap across omics modalities [56].
• Missing Value Handling: Implement specialized approaches for incomplete data, such as BERT's tree-based correction for arbitrarily incomplete omic profiles [60].
• Normalization: Apply modality-specific normalization to address different measurement scales and distributions [58].
• Feature Selection: Employ strategic feature selection to reduce dimensionality while preserving biological signal [58].

Table 3: Multi-Omics Data Types and Their Characteristics

Omics Layer	Typical Features	Data Characteristics	Integration Challenges
Genomics	DNA sequences, variants	Discrete, categorical	High dimensionality, sparse variants
Transcriptomics	RNA expression levels	Continuous, log-normal distribution	Technical noise, batch effects
Proteomics	Protein abundances	Continuous, often missing values	Low coverage, dynamic range limitations
Epigenomics	DNA methylation, histone modifications	Continuous (0-1 for methylation)	Region-specific effects, multiple modifications
Metabolomics	Metabolite concentrations	Continuous, compositional	High variability, platform differences

Computational Infrastructure and Resource Requirements

Implementation of multi-omics integration methods varies significantly in computational demands:

• Foundation Models: Require extensive pretraining resources (days to weeks on multiple GPUs) but efficient inference [28].
• Graph Neural Networks: Moderate training requirements (hours to days on single GPU) with good scalability [61].
• Traditional Methods: Generally efficient (minutes to hours on CPU) with minimal hardware requirements [10].
• Memory Considerations: Large-scale integration (e.g., 5000 datasets) benefits from distributed computing approaches [60].

Method Evaluation Protocol: This diagram outlines the comprehensive evaluation strategy for assessing multi-omics integration methods.

The integration of multi-omics data requires careful method selection based on specific research objectives, data characteristics, and computational resources. While foundation models represent an exciting development in bioinformatics, current evidence suggests they do not universally outperform traditional methods, particularly in zero-shot settings [5] [10]. Graph neural network approaches like GNNRAI demonstrate strong performance in supervised integration tasks, especially when leveraging biological prior knowledge [61]. For large-scale data integration with significant missing values, specialized methods like BERT offer superior data retention and computational efficiency compared to alternatives [60].

Researchers should consider several key factors when selecting integration approaches: the availability of labeled data for supervised versus unsupervised learning; the completeness of multi-omics measurements across samples; the importance of interpretability for biological insight; and computational constraints. As foundation models continue to evolve, their capacity for multi-omics integration will likely improve, but current evidence supports a balanced approach that considers both innovative and established methods based on empirical performance rather than architectural novelty alone.

Navigating the Crisis: Practical Challenges and Strategic Model Selection

The field of bioinformatics is witnessing an unprecedented surge in the development of foundation models (FMs)—large-scale artificial intelligence models trained on broad data that can be adapted to various downstream tasks [62]. These models promise to revolutionize biological research and drug development by uncovering patterns across massive genomic and biomedical datasets. However, this rapid innovation masks a growing crisis of fragmentation and redundancy. Researchers now face a bewildering array of choices, with over 100 foundation models developed for genetics and multi-omics data alone [40]. This proliferation creates significant challenges for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals who must navigate this crowded landscape without clear guidance on model selection or performance characteristics.

The fragmentation problem stems from disparate groups training similar models on different datasets with varying architectures and evaluation criteria. As noted in recent literature, "BFMs are being developed in a fragmented and redundant fashion, with separate groups training their own models on their respective datasets. The result is an increasingly crowded and confusing ecosystem: dozens of models with similar capabilities, unclear differentiation, and no guidance for biomedical researchers in choosing the most appropriate one" [40]. This situation leads to inefficient resource allocation, slowed adoption, and uncertainty about the practical value of these models in real-world applications. This guide provides an objective comparison of model performance and experimental data to inform selection criteria and promote consolidation efforts within the field.

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a prominent category within biomedical FMs, designed to interpret single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data that provides a granular view of transcriptomics at cellular resolution [27]. These models typically employ transformer-based architectures, treating individual cells as "sentences" and genes or genomic features as "words" or "tokens" [28]. The fundamental challenge lies in the non-sequential nature of omics data, where genes lack inherent ordering unlike words in language, requiring specialized tokenization approaches where genes are often ranked by expression levels or partitioned into bins based on expression values [28].

Recent benchmarking studies have evaluated six prominent scFMs (Geneformer, scGPT, UCE, scFoundation, LangCell, and scCello) against established baselines across multiple tasks [27]. These models vary significantly in their pretraining datasets, architectural choices, and parameter counts, leading to specialized strengths and weaknesses. The benchmarking encompasses both gene-level and cell-level tasks, evaluated using metrics spanning unsupervised, supervised, and knowledge-based approaches.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Prominent Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model Name	Omics Modalities	Model Parameters	Pretraining Dataset Size	Input Gene Count	Output Dimension	Architecture Type
Geneformer	scRNA-seq	40 M	30 M cells	2048 ranked genes	256/512	Encoder
scGPT	scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq, CITE-seq, spatial transcriptomics	50 M	33 M cells	1200 HVGs	512	Encoder with attention mask
UCE	scRNA-Seq	650 M	36 M cells	1024 non-unique genes	1280	Encoder
scFoundation	scRNA-Seq	100 M	50 M cells	19,264 genes	3072	Asymmetric encoder-decoder
LangCell	scRNA-Seq	40 M	27.5 M scRNA-text pairs	2048 ranked genes	256	Encoder
scCello	scRNA-Seq	30 M	7.5 M cells	1968 ranked genes	512	Encoder

Experimental Benchmarking: Methodologies and Protocols

Benchmarking Design Principles

Rigorous benchmarking of computational methods requires careful design to generate accurate, unbiased, and informative results [63]. Essential guidelines include clearly defining the purpose and scope, comprehensive method selection, appropriate dataset choice, and robust evaluation metrics. For foundation model evaluation, benchmarks should assess performance across diverse biological tasks and datasets to provide a complete picture of model capabilities and limitations.

Neutral benchmarking studies conducted independently of model development are particularly valuable as they minimize perceived bias [63]. The most informative benchmarks evaluate models under realistic conditions that reflect actual research scenarios, incorporating both simulated data with known ground truths and experimental data with biological complexity. For scFMs, recent benchmarks have employed a zero-shot protocol to evaluate the intrinsic quality of learned representations without task-specific fine-tuning [27].

Task Selection and Evaluation Metrics

Comprehensive benchmarking of scFMs encompasses multiple task categories designed to test different capabilities:

• Gene-level tasks: Evaluate the model's understanding of gene functions and relationships
• Cell-level tasks: Assess cellular representation quality through batch integration, cell type annotation, and population identification
• Clinically relevant tasks: Test practical utility through cancer cell identification and drug sensitivity prediction

Evaluation metrics must capture diverse performance aspects. Recent benchmarks have employed 12 metrics spanning unsupervised, supervised, and knowledge-based approaches [27]. Novel biological metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR measure the consistency of cell type relationships captured by scFMs with prior biological knowledge, while the Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD) metric assesses the severity of errors in cell type annotation based on ontological proximity [27].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Single-Cell Foundation Models Across Task Categories

Model	Batch Integration	Cell Type Annotation	Knowledge Capture (scGraph-OntoRWR)	Drug Sensitivity Prediction	Computational Efficiency
Geneformer	Moderate	High	Moderate	Low	High
scGPT	High	High	High	Moderate	Moderate
UCE	Moderate	Moderate	High	High	Low
scFoundation	High	High	Moderate	High	Low
LangCell	Moderate	Moderate	High	Moderate	High
scCello	High	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	High

Benchmarking Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standardized benchmarking workflow used to evaluate foundation models across diverse biological tasks:

Comparative Performance Analysis: Key Findings

Task-Specific Performance Variations

Benchmarking results reveal that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, highlighting the specialization of different models [27]. scGPT demonstrates strong performance across multiple tasks, particularly in batch integration and knowledge capture, while UCE excels in drug sensitivity prediction. scFoundation shows advantages in large-scale analyses due to its comprehensive gene coverage, whereas Geneformer and LangCell provide better computational efficiency for resource-constrained environments.

This performance variation reflects differences in model architectures, pretraining data, and learning objectives. Encoder-based models like Geneformer excel at representation learning for classification tasks, while decoder-based models like scGPT show stronger generative capabilities [28]. The incorporation of additional biological context, such as protein embeddings in UCE or cell type labels in LangCell, enhances performance on specific task types but may not generalize across all applications.

Comparison with Traditional Methods

A critical finding from recent benchmarks is that scFMs do not universally outperform traditional, simpler machine learning approaches [27]. While foundation models demonstrate advantages for complex tasks requiring biological knowledge transfer, traditional methods like Seurat, Harmony, and scVI remain competitive for well-defined problems with sufficient training data [27]. The performance gap between scFMs and traditional methods narrows particularly in scenarios with limited data or when tasks align closely with the pretraining objectives of traditional methods.

The decision between using foundation models versus traditional approaches should consider multiple factors: dataset size, task complexity, need for biological interpretability, and computational resources. scFMs show the greatest advantages when transferring knowledge across domains, handling novel cell types, or when biological context is crucial for the task [27].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Foundation Model Evaluation

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Benchmarking
Data Resources	CZ CELLxGENE, Human Cell Atlas, PanglaoDB	Provide standardized, annotated single-cell datasets for training and evaluation
Evaluation Metrics	scGraph-OntoRWR, LCAD, ARI, AMI	Quantify model performance from technical and biological perspectives
Benchmarking Frameworks	Custom benchmarking pipelines, Neptune.ai	Enable reproducible model comparison and experiment tracking
Baseline Methods	Seurat, Harmony, scVI, HVG selection	Provide reference points for assessing foundation model advantages
Biological Validation Tools	Cell ontology, Pathway databases	Ground model performance in biological reality

Toward Consolidation: A Model Selection Framework

The current fragmentation in the biomedical FM landscape necessitates a structured approach to model selection. Based on comprehensive benchmarking results, the following diagram outlines a decision framework for selecting the most appropriate foundation model based on research objectives and constraints:

This framework emphasizes that model selection should be driven by specific research needs rather than perceived general performance. For large-scale analyses requiring deep biological insight, resource-intensive models like scFoundation or UCE may be justified. For standardized tasks with limited data, simpler models like Geneformer or traditional methods may be optimal. Critical considerations include:

• Dataset size and diversity: Larger models with extensive pretraining demonstrate advantages with diverse, complex datasets
• Task specificity: Well-defined tasks may not benefit from the general knowledge encoded in foundation models
• Computational constraints: Model size and inference requirements must align with available resources
• Interpretability needs: Applications requiring biological insight benefit from models with transparent reasoning processes

The current proliferation of biomedical foundation models represents both a sign of field vitality and a barrier to practical application. Moving forward, the field must shift focus from model development to model evaluation and utilization [40]. This requires standardized benchmarking protocols, biological-relevant evaluation metrics, and clear guidelines for model selection.

Consolidation efforts should emphasize several key priorities. First, increased emphasis on systematic model evaluation rather than perpetual new model development. Second, development of application-oriented benchmarks that reflect real-world research scenarios. Third, creation of model cards with layered accessible information to drive trust and safety in health AI [40]. Finally, exploration of strategies to integrate existing foundation models with high-quality, small-scale datasets that characterize many biomedical research contexts.

The promising performance of current scFMs across diverse tasks demonstrates their potential to transform biological research. However, realizing this potential requires confronting the fragmentation challenge through coordinated community efforts that prioritize utility over quantity, integration over isolation, and biological insight over abstract metrics. Only through such consolidation can foundation models fulfill their promise as indispensable tools in biomedical research and drug development.

The emergence of foundation models in bioinformatics promises a paradigm shift in how researchers extract meaningful insights from complex biological data. These models, pretrained on broad data at scale, can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks, offering potential solutions to longstanding analytical challenges [1]. However, their performance is fundamentally constrained by three persistent data challenges: technical noise, batch effects, and the 'small data' regime. Technical noise encompasses unwanted variations introduced during data generation, while batch effects represent systematic technical variations arising from processing samples in different batches, under different conditions, or across different platforms [64] [65]. The 'small data' problem refers to the common scenario in biological research where limited annotated samples are available for specific tasks due to constraints like cost, time, or rarity of specimens [66].

These challenges are particularly pronounced in omics studies, where batch effects can lead to misleading conclusions, reduced statistical power, and irreproducible findings [64] [65]. Similarly, in computational pathology, even advanced foundation models face performance degradation in low-data scenarios and low-prevalence tasks [67]. This review systematically compares the capabilities of current methodologies and foundation models in mitigating these data challenges, providing researchers with objective performance evaluations and experimental protocols to guide their analytical decisions.

Batch effects are technical variations unrelated to study objectives that are notoriously common in omics data. They can be introduced at virtually every stage of a high-throughput study, from experimental design to data analysis [64] [65]. During study design, flaws such as non-randomized sample collection or selection based on specific characteristics can introduce systematic biases. The degree of treatment effect of interest also plays a role—minor treatment effects are more easily obscured by technical variations [65]. In sample preparation and storage, variables like protocol procedures, reagent lots, storage temperature, duration, and freeze-thaw cycles can significantly alter mRNA, protein, and metabolite measurements [64].

The fundamental cause of batch effects can be partially attributed to the basic assumptions of data representation in omics data. Quantitative omics profiling relies on the assumption that under any experimental conditions, there is a linear and fixed relationship between instrument readout and the actual abundance of an analyte. In practice, this relationship fluctuates due to differences in experimental factors, making measurements inherently inconsistent across different batches [65].

Profound Impacts on Research Outcomes

The consequences of unaddressed batch effects can be severe. In the most benign cases, they increase variability and decrease power to detect real biological signals. More problematically, they can interfere with downstream statistical analysis, leading to batch-correlated features being erroneously identified as significant [64] [65]. In extreme cases, batch effects have led to incorrect clinical classifications. One documented example involved a change in RNA-extraction solution that resulted in incorrect classification outcomes for 162 patients, 28 of whom received incorrect or unnecessary chemotherapy regimens [64].

Batch effects also represent a paramount factor contributing to the reproducibility crisis in scientific research. A Nature survey found that 90% of respondents believed there was a reproducibility crisis, with over half considering it significant. Batch effects from reagent variability and experimental bias are among the primary factors [64]. This irreproducibility has led to retracted papers, discredited research findings, and substantial financial losses. For example, a high-profile study describing a fluorescent serotonin biosensor had to be retracted when its sensitivity was found to be highly dependent on reagent batches, making key results unreproducible [64].

Benchmarking Batch Effect Correction Methods

Statistical Approaches for Batch Effect Correction

Multiple statistical methods have been developed to address batch effects in biological data. Linear mixed models (LMM) and Combat are two prominent approaches that have been systematically compared for correcting batch effects in human transcriptome data [68]. Simulations evaluating these methods have shown relatively small differences in their overall performance. LMM identifies stronger relationships between large effect sizes and gene expression than Combat, while Combat generally identifies more true and false positives than LMM. These nuanced differences can be relevant depending on the specific research goals and priorities [68].

The utility of quality control (QC) samples as technical replicates has also been assessed as a strategy for batch effect correction. Interestingly, when either LMM or Combat methods are applied, QC samples do not significantly reduce batch effects, showing no clear added value for including them in study designs [68]. This suggests that computational correction methods may be more effective than experimental designs incorporating QC samples once batch effects have been introduced.

Specialized Methods for Genomic Data

In whole genome sequencing (WGS) data, batch effects present unique challenges due to the complexity of interrogating difficult-to-characterize genomic regions. Common approaches like the Variant Quality Score Recalibration (VQSR) in GATK and joint processing using the GATK HaplotypeCaller pipeline fail to remove all batch effects [69]. Researchers have developed specialized filtering strategies to mitigate these effects, including:

• Haplotype-based genotype correction: Using haplotype blocks to detect and correct genotype errors [69]
• Differential genotype quality filters: Identifying variants with significantly different quality metrics between batches [69]
• Missingness thresholds: Setting genotypes with quality scores <20 to missing, then filtering sites with >30% missingness (GQ20M30 filter) [69]

These methods have demonstrated effectiveness in removing 96.1% of unconfirmed genome-wide significant SNP associations and 97.6% of unconfirmed genome-wide significant indel associations attributable to batch effects, though they come with an estimated 12.5% reduction in power for detecting true associations [69].

Table 1: Comparison of Batch Effect Correction Methods

Method	Data Type	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations
Linear Mixed Models (LMM) [68]	Transcriptomics	Models batch as random effect	Identifies stronger relationships with big effect sizes	May miss some true positives
Combat [68]	Transcriptomics	Empirical Bayes framework	Generally identifies more true positives	Can identify more false positives
Haplotype-based Correction [69]	Whole Genome Sequencing	Uses haplotype blocks to correct genotypes	Effective for genotype error detection	Requires haplotype information
GQ20M30 Filter [69]	Whole Genome Sequencing	Sets GQ<20 to missing, filters >30% missingness	High specificity for batch-affected variants	Reduces power by ~12.5%

The 'Small Data' Challenge in Biological Research

Fundamental Constraints in Molecular Science

The 'small data' challenge is pervasive in scientific research due to various constraints in data acquisition, including time, cost, ethics, privacy, security, and technical limitations [66]. While fields like computer vision and natural language processing often have access to large-scale datasets with billions of data points, this is typically not the case in biological and chemical sciences. In drug discovery, for example, the process is constrained by multiple factors including toxicity, potency, side effects, and various pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic metrics, resulting in few records of successful clinical candidates for any given target [66].

When the number of training samples is very small, the ability of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models to learn from observed data sharply decreases, resulting in poor predictive performance. If standard learning techniques are applied without advanced strategies or specific model design, serious overfitting may occur, significantly reducing predictive power [66]. This challenge has driven the development of specialized approaches tailored to small data scenarios.

Machine Learning Strategies for Small Data

Several viable strategies have emerged to improve the predictive power of ML and DL models when dealing with small scientific datasets:

• Transfer learning: Leveraging knowledge from related domains or larger datasets [66]
• Combining deep learning with traditional ML: Integrating the strengths of both approaches [66]
• Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and variational autoencoders (VAE): Generating synthetic data to augment limited datasets [66]
• Self-supervised learning (SSL): Learning representations from unlabeled data [66] [67]
• Active learning: Intelligently selecting the most informative samples for labeling [66]
• Semi-supervised learning: Leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data [66]
• Physical model-based data augmentation: Using domain knowledge to generate realistic synthetic data [66]

These approaches recognize that efficiently learning from very few training samples holds great theoretical and practical significance, potentially avoiding prohibitively high costs of data acquisition and enabling faster model development for emerging tasks [66].

Foundation Models as Solutions for Data Challenges

Foundation models (FMs) are inherently versatile AI models pretrained on a wide range of data to cater to multiple downstream tasks without requiring reinitialization of parameters [1]. This broad pretraining, focusing on universal learning goals rather than task-specific ones, ensures adaptability in fine-tuning, few-shot, or zero-shot scenarios, significantly enhancing performance [1]. In bioinformatics, FMs trained on massive biological data offer unparalleled predictive capabilities through fine-tuning mechanisms, addressing challenges such as limited annotated data and data noise [1].

Foundation models can be categorized into discriminative and generative approaches. Discriminative FMs, like adaptations of BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) for biological data (e.g., BioBERT, DNABERT), capture the semantic or biological meaning of sequences by constructing encoders that extract intricate patterns from annotated data [1]. These models excel at classification and regression tasks. Generative FMs focus on autoregressive methods to generate semantic features and contextual information from unannotated data, producing rich representations valuable for various downstream applications [1].

Performance Benchmarking of Pathology Foundation Models

A comprehensive benchmarking study evaluated 19 histopathology foundation models on 13 patient cohorts with 6,818 patients and 9,528 slides across lung, colorectal, gastric, and breast cancers [67]. The models were assessed on weakly supervised tasks related to biomarkers, morphological properties, and prognostic outcomes. The study revealed that CONCH, a vision-language foundation model, yielded the highest overall performance, with Virchow2 as a close second [67].

Table 2: Performance of Leading Pathology Foundation Models Across Task Types

Model	Morphology Tasks (Mean AUROC)	Biomarker Tasks (Mean AUROC)	Prognosis Tasks (Mean AUROC)	Overall Mean AUROC
CONCH [67]	0.77	0.73	0.63	0.71
Virchow2 [67]	0.76	0.73	0.61	0.71
Prov-GigaPath [67]	-	0.72	-	0.69
DinoSSLPath [67]	0.76	-	-	0.69

The performance advantage of CONCH was less pronounced in low-data scenarios and low-prevalence tasks [67]. This highlights an important limitation of even advanced foundation models when facing severe data constraints. Interestingly, the research found that foundation models trained on distinct cohorts learn complementary features to predict the same labels, and can be fused to outperform individual models. An ensemble combining CONCH and Virchow2 predictions outperformed individual models in 55% of tasks [67].

Evaluation of Single-Cell Foundation Models

In single-cell genomics, foundation models like Geneformer and scGPT have been developed to learn embeddings capturing sophisticated patterns of single-cell gene expression profiles [5]. However, when evaluated on zero-shot performances across tasks including cell-type clustering and batch integration, these large models often do not outperform simpler competitors [5]. This surprising result contrasts with growing excitement around these models and suggests their learned representations may not yet reflect the biological insight they are sometimes claimed to uncover [5].

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Protocol for Benchmarking Batch Effect Correction Methods

Objective: Systematically evaluate the performance of batch effect correction methods in transcriptomics data.

Dataset Preparation:

• Use real gene expression datasets with known batch effects
• Simulate additional batch effects with varying effect sizes, statistical noise, and sample sizes
• Include both balanced and unbalanced designs [68]

Method Application:

• Apply Linear Mixed Models (LMM) with batch as a random effect
• Apply Combat using empirical Bayes framework
• Implement both methods with and without quality control samples [68]

Performance Metrics:

• Sensitivity: Proportion of true biological effects correctly identified
• Specificity: Proportion of non-effects correctly identified
• False positive rates: Comparison across methods and conditions [68]

Validation:

• Compare corrected datasets to known biological truths
• Assess preservation of biological signal while removing technical artifacts [68]

Protocol for Evaluating Foundation Models in Low-Data Regimes

Objective: Assess foundation model performance under data constraints relevant to real-world biological research.

Model Selection:

• Include diverse architecture types (vision-only, vision-language)
• Select models with varying pretraining dataset sizes and diversity [67]

Experimental Design:

• Create limited data scenarios by subsampling training cohorts (e.g., 300, 150, 75 patients)
• Maintain similar ratios of positive samples across sample sizes
• Focus on clinically relevant tasks with rare positive cases (>15% prevalence) [67]

Evaluation Framework:

• Validate models on full-size external cohorts not seen during training
• Measure performance using AUROC, AUPRC, balanced accuracy, and F1 scores
• Compare performance degradation across data scarcity levels [67]

Analysis:

• Correlate performance with pretraining dataset characteristics (size, diversity)
• Identify architecture choices resilient to data limitations [67]

Experimental Workflow for Foundation Model Evaluation in Low-Data Regimes

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools for Data Challenges

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Addressing Data Challenges

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context	Key Features
Linear Mixed Models (LMM) [68]	Batch effect correction	Transcriptomics data	Models batch as random effect; handles complex study designs
Combat [68]	Batch effect correction	Gene expression data	Empirical Bayes framework; standardizes distributions across batches
genotypeeval R package [69]	Batch effect detection	Whole genome sequencing	Computes quality metrics; PCA-based batch effect identification
CONCH [67]	Vision-language foundation model	Computational pathology	Trained on 1.17M image-caption pairs; excels in multi-task benchmarks
Virchow2 [67]	Vision-only foundation model	Computational pathology	Trained on 3.1M whole-slide images; robust across tissue types
Geneformer [5]	Single-cell foundation model	Transcriptomics	Learns embeddings from single-cell gene expression data
scGPT [5]	Single-cell foundation model	Transcriptomics	Generative pretrained transformer for single-cell data
Transfer Learning [66]	Small data mitigation	Multiple domains	Adapts pretrained models to new tasks with limited data
GANs/VAE [66]	Data augmentation	Multiple domains	Generates synthetic data to augment limited training sets
Self-Supervised Learning [66] [67]	Representation learning	Multiple domains	Learns from unlabeled data; reduces annotation requirements

Integrated Analysis: Method Comparison and Recommendations

The benchmarking data reveals several important patterns in how different approaches address data challenges. For batch effect correction, the choice between methods like LMM and Combat involves trade-offs between sensitivity to large effect sizes and control of false positives [68]. For foundation models, architecture decisions and training data characteristics significantly influence performance across different data regimes.

Foundation Model Performance Versus Data Volume

The integration of evidence across studies suggests several strategic recommendations for researchers facing these data challenges:

• For batch effect correction: Prioritize LMM when studying strong biological effects where sensitivity to large effect sizes is crucial. Choose Combat when working with subtler signals where maximizing true positive detection is prioritized over false positive control [68].

• For genomic batch effects: Implement a multi-step filtering approach combining haplotype-based correction, differential genotype quality tests, and missingness thresholds, particularly when integrating datasets from different sequencing platforms or periods [69].

• For foundation model selection in data-rich scenarios: CONCH and Virchow2 currently represent the state-of-the-art in computational pathology, with each showing strengths in different task types [67].

• For low-data regimes: Consider ensemble approaches that combine multiple foundation models, as they have been shown to outperform individual models in more than half of tasks by leveraging complementary features [67].

• For single-cell analysis: Temper expectations for zero-shot performance of current foundation models, as they may not outperform simpler methods despite their complexity [5].

The evidence consistently indicates that data diversity outweighs data volume for foundation model performance [67]. This suggests that strategic data collection emphasizing diversity may be more effective than simply amassing larger datasets. Furthermore, the complementary strengths of different foundation models indicate that ensemble approaches represent a promising direction for future method development.

As foundation models continue to evolve, their ability to address persistent data challenges will likely improve. However, current evaluations suggest that careful method selection based on specific data characteristics and research goals remains essential for generating robust, reproducible biological insights.

Foundation Models (FMs) represent a paradigm shift in artificial intelligence, characterized by their training on broad data at scale and their adaptability to a wide range of downstream tasks [70]. In bioinformatics, these models are increasingly deployed to tackle complex biological challenges, from genomics and proteomics to drug discovery and single-cell analysis [2]. The term "foundation model" was specifically coined to describe these large-scale, deep learning neural networks that are pre-trained on extensive datasets and can be adapted for various applications without starting from scratch [70].

The fundamental distinction lies in their scope and architecture: while traditional machine learning models are designed for specific tasks, foundation models serve as general-purpose base models that can be fine-tuned for specialized applications [71] [70]. This adaptability comes with significant computational costs and infrastructure requirements, raising a critical question for researchers: when does the performance justify the investment, and when might simpler alternatives be more effective? This framework provides a structured approach to navigate this decision, specifically within the context of bioinformatics research.

Defining the Contenders: Foundation Models and Their Alternatives

What is a Foundation Model?

A Foundation Model is a large deep learning neural network trained on massive, broad datasets that can be adapted to a wide variety of tasks [70]. Key characteristics include:

• Scale: Trained on vast datasets using millions or billions of parameters [70]
• Adaptability: Can perform disparate tasks from natural language processing to image classification based on input prompts [70]
• Self-supervised learning: Creates labels from input data without human-labeled datasets [70]

In bioinformatics, foundation models have demonstrated remarkable success in addressing historical challenges such as protein structure prediction, with models like AlphaFold series achieving unprecedented accuracy in predicting protein three-dimensional structures [2].

Categories of Foundation Models in Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics foundation models can be categorized into four main types, each with distinct applications:

Table: Foundation Model Types in Bioinformatics

Model Type	Key Examples	Primary Bioinformatics Applications
Language FMs	DNABERT, GPT-based models [2]	Genomic sequence analysis, literature mining, biological text processing
Vision FMs	AlexNet, ResNet, Segment Anything Model (SAM) [2]	Medical image analysis, cellular image segmentation, microscopy data
Graph FMs	MPNN, GIN, Graphormer [2]	Molecular structure analysis, protein-protein interaction networks, drug-target interactions
Multimodal FMs	CLIP, ViT [2]	Integrating diverse data types (e.g., genetic + clinical data), multi-omics analysis

Simpler Alternatives to Foundation Models

While foundation models offer powerful capabilities, several simpler alternatives remain viable for many bioinformatics tasks:

• Task-specific traditional machine learning: Random forests, support vector machines for classification tasks
• Statistical models: Regression analysis, hypothesis testing for quantitative data analysis [72]
• Rule-based systems: Expert systems with predefined knowledge bases [73]
• Shallow neural networks: Less complex architectures with limited parameters
• Heuristic optimization algorithms: Genetic algorithms, particle swarm optimization for specific optimization problems [73]

The Decision Framework: Key Criteria for Model Selection

Selecting between foundation models and simpler alternatives requires systematic evaluation across multiple dimensions. The following decision framework provides a structured approach for researchers to make informed choices based on their specific project requirements.

Primary Decision Criteria

Table: Core Decision Criteria for Model Selection

Criterion	Choose Foundation Model When...	Choose Simpler Alternative When...
Data Modality & Complexity	Multiple data types (text, image, graph) must be integrated [71] [2]	Working with a single, structured data type [71]
Task Generality vs. Specificity	Addressing multiple related tasks or requiring transfer learning [70]	Solving a single, well-defined problem with established methods
Performance Requirements	State-of-the-art accuracy is critical; small improvements have significant impact [2]	Baseline performance is acceptable; marginal gains don't justify costs
Computational Resources	Access to substantial GPU memory, high-throughput computing [71]	Limited computational budget or need for edge deployment [71]
Interpretability Needs	Black-box predictions are acceptable with post-hoc explanation	Model interpretability is essential for scientific validation
Development Timeline	Longer development and tuning time is feasible	Rapid prototyping or deployment is required

Decision Framework for Model Selection in Bioinformatics

Secondary Considerations for Bioinformatics Applications

Beyond the primary criteria, several domain-specific factors influence model selection in bioinformatics:

• Data availability and quality: Foundation models require large-scale datasets for effective fine-tuning, while simpler models may perform adequately with smaller, curated datasets [2]
• Regulatory constraints: In clinical applications, model interpretability requirements may favor simpler, more transparent approaches [73]
• Integration with existing workflows: Simpler models often integrate more easily with established bioinformatics pipelines
• Expertise availability: Foundation models require specialized MLops skills, while simpler models can be maintained by domain experts with limited ML training

Quantitative Comparison: Performance Benchmarks in Bioinformatics Tasks

To make informed decisions, researchers require concrete performance comparisons between foundation models and simpler alternatives across common bioinformatics tasks. The following data summarizes typical performance ranges based on published benchmarks.

Performance Benchmarks Across Bioinformatics Applications

Table: Performance Comparison of Models in Bioinformatics Tasks

Bioinformatics Task	Foundation Model Approach	Simpler Alternative	Performance Differential	Compute Requirement Factor
Protein Structure Prediction	AlphaFold2/3 [2]	Traditional homology modeling	~50-100% improvement in accuracy [2]	100-1000x
Genomic Sequence Annotation	DNABERT [2]	Position-Specific Scoring Matrices	~15-25% improvement in precision	10-50x
Drug-Target Interaction Prediction	Graph Foundation Models [2]	Random Forest / SVM classifiers	~10-20% improvement in AUC	50-100x
Medical Image Segmentation	Vision FMs (SAM) [2]	U-Net architectures	~5-15% improvement in Dice score	20-50x
Transcriptomics Classification	Multimodal FMs [2]	PCA + Logistic Regression	~8-12% improvement in F1-score	50-200x

Resource Requirements and Scaling Patterns

The performance advantages of foundation models come with significant computational costs that must be factored into the decision process:

• Inference latency: Foundation models typically have higher latency (100ms-10s) compared to simpler models (1-100ms) [71]
• Memory requirements: Foundation models may require specialized GPU memory (16GB+) while simpler models can run on CPUs or minimal GPU memory [71]
• Deployment complexity: Foundation models often require containerization and specialized serving infrastructure, while simpler models can be deployed as part of standard bioinformatics pipelines [71]

Performance-Cost Tradeoffs in Model Scaling

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Model Choices

To implement this decision framework in practice, researchers should establish standardized experimental protocols for evaluating model options. The following methodologies provide guidance for systematic comparison.

Protocol 1: Multi-Modal Data Integration Experiment

Objective: Evaluate whether a multimodal foundation model provides sufficient advantage over separate simpler models for integrated data analysis.

Materials and Setup:

• Datasets: Paired genomic, transcriptomic, and clinical data for a specific disease cohort
• Foundation Model: Multimodal FM (e.g., CLIP-based architecture) [2]
• Simpler Alternative: Ensemble of specialized models (CNN for images, RF for clinical data, BERT for text) with late fusion
• Evaluation Metric: Balanced accuracy, F1-score, and computational efficiency

Procedure:

• Preprocess all data modalities to standardized formats
• Fine-tune multimodal foundation model on labeled training set (70% of data)
• Train ensemble of simpler models on same training set
• Evaluate both approaches on held-out test set (30% of data)
• Compare performance metrics and computational requirements

Protocol 2: Limited Data Scenario Experiment

Objective: Determine the minimum data requirements for a foundation model to outperform simpler alternatives.

Materials and Setup:

• Foundation Model: Pre-trained language FM fine-tuned on progressively smaller datasets
• Simpler Alternative: Traditional machine learning model (SVM, Random Forest) trained on same data
• Data Subsets: Create training subsets from 100 to 10,000 samples
• Evaluation Metric: Learning curves plotting performance vs. training set size

Procedure:

• Create stratified sampling of training data at different scales (100, 500, 1K, 5K, 10K samples)
• Fine-tune foundation model on each subset
• Train simpler alternative on identical subsets
• Evaluate all models on fixed test set
• Identify the inflection point where foundation model begins to outperform simpler alternative

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table: Essential Resources for Foundation Model Experiments in Bioinformatics

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Availability Considerations
Computational Infrastructure	High-memory GPU clusters (NVIDIA A100, H100) [2]	Training and fine-tuning large foundation models	Cloud providers (AWS, GCP) or institutional HPC
Bioinformatics Datasets	Genomic sequences (DNABERT), protein structures (AlphaFold), molecular graphs [2]	Task-specific fine-tuning and evaluation	Public repositories (NCBI, PDB) or proprietary collections
Model Architectures	Transformer networks, Graph Neural Networks, Vision Transformers [2]	Base architecture for foundation models	Open-source implementations (Hugging Face, GitHub)
Evaluation Benchmarks	Protein structure prediction (CASP), genomic annotation (ENCODE) [2]	Standardized performance assessment	Community-established benchmarks and metrics
Analysis Frameworks	JAX, PyTorch, TensorFlow with bioinformatics extensions [2]	Model development, training, and interpretation	Open-source with domain-specific extensions
Nhe3-IN-3	Nhe3-IN-3|Potent NHE3 Inhibitor|Research Use Only		Bench Chemicals

Case Studies in Bioinformatics Research

Case Study 1: Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold

The evolution of AlphaFold provides a compelling case study in when foundation models are justified over simpler alternatives.

Problem Context: Predicting protein 3D structure from amino acid sequences is a decades-old challenge in structural biology. Traditional methods relied on homology modeling and physical simulations with limited accuracy.

Foundation Model Solution: AlphaFold series implemented increasingly sophisticated foundation model approaches:

• AlphaFold: Used residual neural networks with evolutionary data [2]
• AlphaFold2: Introduced EvoFormer with attention mechanisms for MSA processing [2]
• AlphaFold3: Incorporated diffusion models for direct atomic coordinate prediction [2]

Performance Outcome: AlphaFold models achieved unprecedented accuracy (often within atomic resolution), revolutionizing structural biology [2].

Decision Framework Analysis:

• Data Modality: Complex integration of sequence, structure, and evolutionary data
• Performance Requirement: High accuracy essential for scientific utility
• Resource Availability: Significant computational resources from DeepMind
• Justification: Foundation model clearly justified given performance breakthrough

Case Study 2: Genomic Variant Classification

Problem Context: Classifying pathogenicity of genomic variants is crucial for clinical genetics. Traditional methods use curated databases and rule-based systems.

Foundation Model Solution: DNABERT and similar language FMs treat DNA sequences as text, applying transformer architectures to predict variant effects [2].

Simpler Alternative: Gradient boosting machines (XGBoost) with carefully engineered features from sequence and conservation data.

Comparative Outcome: Foundation models show modest improvements (10-15%) over well-tuned simpler models, but with 50x computational cost [2].

Decision Framework Analysis:

• Data Modality: Primarily sequential DNA data
• Performance Requirement: Moderate improvements valuable but not transformative
• Resource Constraints: Clinical settings often have limited computing infrastructure
• Justification: Foundation model may not be justified given cost-performance tradeoff

Strategic Implementation Guidelines

Successfully implementing this decision framework requires a structured approach:

• Problem Assessment Phase

  • Clearly define the biological question and success metrics
  • Inventory available data types and volumes
  • Map existing computational resources and constraints

• Pilot Evaluation Phase

  • Conduct small-scale experiments using both foundation models and simpler alternatives
  • Evaluate using the decision criteria outlined in Section 3
  • Quantify performance differentials and resource requirements

• Deployment Planning Phase

  • Select the appropriate model class based on pilot results
  • Plan for integration with existing bioinformatics workflows
  • Establish monitoring and evaluation protocols for continuous assessment

The choice between foundation models and simpler alternatives in bioinformatics is not absolute but contingent on specific research contexts, constraints, and objectives. This decision framework provides a structured approach to navigate this complex landscape, balancing the transformative potential of foundation models against the efficiency and practicality of simpler approaches. As the field evolves, the most successful bioinformatics researchers will be those who can strategically match model complexity to problem requirements, leveraging foundation models where they provide decisive advantages while employing simpler alternatives where they offer better returns on investment. The future of bioinformatics will undoubtedly involve both approaches working in concert, with foundation models tackling the most complex, multi-modal challenges while simpler alternatives continue to provide efficient solutions for well-defined problems.

The integration of large-scale foundation models in bioinformatics promises to revolutionize research and drug development by enabling sophisticated analysis of complex biological data. However, the substantial computational resources required to train and run these models present a significant barrier, particularly for researchers in resource-limited settings. This guide provides an objective comparison of the computational demands of various bioinformatics foundation models and details practical, proven strategies for deploying efficient computing infrastructure where resources are constrained. By evaluating performance data and outlining sustainable operational models, this analysis aims to equip scientists with the knowledge to make informed decisions that balance computational capability with practical limitations.

Computational Demands of Bioinformatics Foundation Models

Foundation models, particularly in single-cell genomics, require extensive computational resources for both pre-training and subsequent fine-tuning for specific downstream tasks. These models are typically built on transformer architectures, which utilize self-attention mechanisms that are computationally intensive due to their ability to capture complex, long-range relationships within data [28]. The scale of this demand is primarily driven by two factors: the massive volumes of training data and the inherent complexity of the model architectures.

Table: Computational Characteristics of Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs)

Model Characteristic	Computational Demand & Scaling Factor	Impact on Resource Requirements
Primary Architecture	Transformer-based (Encoder, Decoder, or hybrid) [28]	High memory and processing power for self-attention mechanisms.
Pre-training Data Scale	Tens of millions of single-cell omics datasets [28]	Directly scales storage I/O, memory footprint, and training time.
Key Resource Intensive Steps	Self-supervised pretraining (e.g., predicting masked genes) [28]	Requires powerful GPUs/TPUs with large VRAM for weeks or months.
Fine-tuning for Tasks	Transfer learning for new datasets or predictions [28]	Less intensive than pre-training but still requires significant GPU memory.
Handling Multiple Modalities	Integrating scRNA-seq, scATAC-seq, spatial data [28]	Increases model complexity and input dimensions, raising compute needs.

The computational burden is further amplified by the challenges of processing biological data. Single-cell data, for instance, lacks a natural sequential order, requiring models to employ various tokenization and gene-ranking strategies (e.g., ranking by expression level) to structure the input, which adds pre-processing overhead [28]. Moreover, as models evolve to incorporate multiple data modalities—such as single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), ATAC-seq, and spatial transcriptomics—the computational intensity required for training and inference grows correspondingly [28]. Understanding these demands is the first step in planning efficient and feasible deployments.

Performance and Efficiency Comparison of Computational Methods

When selecting analytical methods, researchers must balance computational cost against performance. The field is evolving from traditional algorithms to more complex deep learning models, each with distinct efficiency profiles. The table below provides a comparative overview of various methods, highlighting their performance and resource consumption.

Table: Performance and Resource Comparison of Bioinformatics Methods

Method / Tool Name	Reported Performance Metric	Computational Efficiency / Demand	Key Application Area
PANAMA [74]	Significantly outperforms state-of-the-art in multiple genome alignment.	High efficiency on pangenomic scale; uses anchor-based method with prefix-free parsing.	Multiple alignment of assembled genomes.
Pre-Scoring G-S-M [74]	Improved computational efficiency and analytical precision vs. traditional G-S-M.	Reduces features per dataset; uses Limma for pre-scoring to lower demand.	Transcriptomic data analysis for classification.
Boosted Bi-GRU [74]	F1: 0.850, Semantic Similarity: 0.900.	Lightweight (38M parameters); exceptional computational efficiency.	Automated Gene Ontology annotation.
Fine-tuned LLMs (e.g., Phi-1.5B) [74]	Competitive annotation accuracy.	Moderate GPU usage; balances resource use and performance.	Automated ontology annotation.
Fine-tuned LLMs (e.g., Llama 2, 7B) [74]	Comparable results to other large models.	High demand; GPU usage >125 GB during fine-tuning.	Automated ontology annotation.
scFMs (General) [28]	High accuracy in cell type annotation, batch correction, and prediction.	Very high pre-training cost; fine-tuning is less intensive but still significant.	General single-cell genomics tasks.

The data indicates a clear trade-off. Lightweight, specialized models like the Boosted Bi-GRU can achieve state-of-the-art performance on specific tasks with minimal resource consumption [74]. In contrast, larger models, including foundation models and LLMs with 7B parameters, offer powerful and flexible analysis but require immense computational resources for full fine-tuning [74]. Furthermore, algorithmic innovations can significantly enhance efficiency, as demonstrated by the Pre-Scoring G-S-M model, which streamlined its pipeline by incorporating a statistical pre-selection step, thereby reducing the number of features processed without compromising accuracy [74].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Model Efficiency

To objectively compare the efficiency of different models and infrastructures, standardized benchmarking protocols are essential. These experiments should measure both the computational resources consumed and the performance achieved on a defined task.

Protocol for Benchmarking Computational Resource Usage

This protocol measures the hardware demands of model training and inference.

• 1. Environment Setup: Execute all models on identical hardware, typically a high-performance computing (HPC) node with multiple CPU cores, a high-memory GPU, and fast local storage. The operating system and core software should be standardized.
• 2. Data Preparation: Use a publicly available, standardized dataset relevant to the task. For a fair comparison, ensure all models are evaluated on the same data split.
• 3. Resource Monitoring: Run each model through a complete training and inference cycle, using tools to track key metrics in real-time.
• 4. Data Collection and Analysis: Record the metrics for each model run. The results should be compiled into a comparison table for analysis.

Protocol for Comparative Model Performance

This protocol evaluates the accuracy and biological relevance of the model's outputs.

• 1. Define Benchmarking Task and Datasets: Select a clear task and multiple independent datasets for evaluation to ensure robustness.
• 2. Standardize Evaluation Metrics: Choose metrics based on the task.
• 3. Run Models and Evaluate Outputs: Execute the models on the test datasets and calculate the pre-defined metrics for each.
• 4. Statistical Analysis and Reporting: Perform statistical tests to determine if performance differences are significant. Report the results, highlighting the trade-offs between performance and efficiency.

Infrastructure Strategies for Resource-Limited Settings

Establishing and maintaining sustainable computing infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires innovative approaches to overcome challenges like unstable power, limited funding, and high ambient temperatures. The operational model chosen for an HPC facility is foundational to its success.

Table: High-Performance Computing (HPC) Operational Models

Operational Model	Key Characteristics	Pros and Cons for Resource-Limited Settings
Core Facility Model (CFM) [75]	Centralized resources within an institution; dedicated IT teams; user fees.	Pro: Centralized control. Con: Limited scalability; reliant on consistent internal funding.
Partnership Model (PM) [75]	Collaboration between government, academia, and/or industry; cost-sharing.	Pro: Shares financial burden and expertise. Con: Complex coordination and governance.
Vocational Training Center Model (VTCM) [75]	Tailors HPC to institutional training and research needs.	Pro: Attracts students/faculty; enhances sustainability. Con: Often faces resource limitations.
Cloud HPC Provider Model (CHPM) [75]	On-demand, scalable cloud computing; pay-per-use.	Pro: No upfront hardware cost; scalable. Con: High long-term costs; data security/ethics concerns.
Consortium Model (CM) [75]	Institutions pool resources, expertise, and infrastructure.	Pro: Cost-sharing and collaboration. Con: Requires complex governance and security management.

A hybrid approach, as demonstrated by the African Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Data Intensive Sciences (ACE) Uganda, can be highly effective. They combine the Core Facility, Research Center, and Vocational Training Center models to centralize resources, focus on bioinformatics, and build a sustainable user base through training [75]. Beyond the operational model, critical infrastructure considerations include:

• Power Solutions: HPC research requires uninterrupted operation. Solutions must include battery backups to bridge short outages, voltage stabilizers to protect against grid fluctuations, and ideally, solar power for long-term savings despite high initial costs [75].
• Cooling Systems: HPCs generate significant heat. While immersion cooling is most efficient, air cooling is the most accessible and maintainable option in LMICs due to widespread expertise. Containing the cooling to a small server enclosure, rather than an entire room, improves efficiency [75].
• Process Management: Robust onboarding, resource management tools, and a fair-share pricing model are crucial for optimizing utilization and ensuring financial sustainability. Tools like SLURM for workload management and ticketing systems for user support are essential [75].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computing Solutions

Successful computational research relies on a combination of software tools, hardware infrastructure, and strategic frameworks. The following table details key components for building and maintaining efficient research workflows in bioinformatics.

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Bioinformatics

Item / Solution	Category	Function / Purpose
SLURM Workload Manager	Software Tool	Manages and schedules computational jobs on an HPC cluster, ensuring fair and efficient resource use [75].
Stable Power Infrastructure	Hardware & Facility	Ensures uninterrupted operation; includes battery backups, voltage stabilizers, and solar power solutions [75].
Efficient Cooling System	Hardware & Facility	Protects high-value computing components from heat damage; options include air and liquid cooling [75].
Hybrid Operational Model	Strategic Framework	A combined operational approach to optimize resources, focus research, and ensure sustainability [75].
scFMs (Pre-trained)	Software Model	Large-scale AI models for single-cell data that can be fine-tuned for specific tasks, saving compute vs. full training [28].
Ticketing System	Software & Process	Manages user support requests efficiently, ensuring problems are tracked and resolved [75].
Skilled HPC Personnel	Human Resource	System administrators and support staff essential for installation, maintenance, and user training [75].

The pursuit of computational efficiency in bioinformatics is not merely a technical challenge but a prerequisite for equitable and sustainable global research. Foundation models offer transformative potential, but their adoption in resource-limited settings depends on strategic choices. Researchers must leverage performance comparisons to select models that offer the best balance of accuracy and efficiency, such as lightweight specialized architectures or fine-tuned smaller LLMs. Furthermore, the success of computational projects is inextricably linked to robust and sustainable infrastructure, governed by a clear operational model and supported by reliable power, cooling, and skilled personnel. By integrating efficient software with resilient hardware and strategic planning, the scientific community can empower researchers everywhere to contribute to the advancement of bioinformatics and drug discovery.

In bioinformatics, the shift towards using foundation models—large-scale deep learning systems pre-trained on vast datasets—has created a critical need for interpretability. These models, while powerful, often function as "black boxes," making it difficult to understand the reasoning behind their predictions [76] [77]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this lack of transparency is a major barrier. Without clarity on how a model arrives at an output—such as a candidate drug target or a disease subphenotype—it is challenging to validate findings mechanistically and translate them into biological insight or clinical applications [78] [79].

This guide objectively compares current methods for interpreting foundation models in biology. It moves beyond mere technical performance to focus on how these techniques uncover biologically meaningful information, providing a structured comparison of their principles, experimental validation, and practical utility.

The Imperative for Interpretability in Bioinformatics

The drive for interpretability is fueled by more than technical curiosity; it is a cornerstone of building trust, ensuring fairness, and extracting genuine scientific value.

• The Black Box Problem: Complex models like deep neural networks and transformers can achieve high predictive accuracy. However, their multi-layered, non-linear structures obscure the decision-making process. Understanding whether a prediction is based on robust biological signals or spurious artifacts is difficult [76] [77].
• From Prediction to Biological Insight: The ultimate goal in bioinformatics is not just to predict but to understand. As one study notes, interpretability allows researchers to "connect results generated by machine learning applications with existing biological theory and understanding of biological mechanisms" [78]. This is essential for forming testable hypotheses.
• Regulatory and Ethical Compliance: With regulations like the EU's AI Act imposing strict transparency requirements on high-risk AI systems, explainability is becoming a legal necessity, particularly in healthcare and drug development [80].

Comparative Frameworks for Interpretability Methods

Interpretability methods can be broadly categorized into two paradigms: post-hoc explanation techniques that analyze a model after training, and intrinsically interpretable model designs that build explainability directly into the architecture.

Post-Hoc Explanation Methods

These techniques are applied to a trained model to explain its predictions without altering its internal workings. They are often model-agnostic, meaning they can be used on a variety of architectures.

Table 1: Comparison of Post-Hoc Explainability Techniques

Method	Core Principle	Typical Application in Bioinformatics	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [77] [79]	Based on cooperative game theory to assign each feature an importance value for a specific prediction.	Identifying proteins or genes most critical for classifying disease subphenotypes [79].	Provides a unified, theoretically robust measure of feature importance; consistent and locally accurate.	Computationally intensive for high-dimensional data (e.g., full transcriptomes).
LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) [77]	Perturbs input data and learns an interpretable model locally around a specific prediction.	Explaining individual cell type classifications in single-cell RNA-seq analysis.	Intuitive; creates simple, human-readable explanations for complex models.	Explanations can be unstable; sensitive to the perturbation method.
Counterfactual Explanations [77]	Finds the minimal changes to the input required to alter the model's prediction.	Determining what genetic expression changes would re-classify a cell from 'diseased' to 'healthy'.	Actionable insights; helps understand the model's decision boundaries.	Can generate biologically implausible scenarios if not constrained.
Attention Mechanisms [77] [28]	Weights the importance of different parts of the input sequence (e.g., genes) when making a prediction.	Highlighting which genes a single-cell foundation model "attends to" for cell state annotation.	Provides a direct view into the model's "focus" during processing; naturally integrated into transformers.	Attention weights are not always faithful to the true reasoning process [77].

Intrinsically Interpretable Model Designs

This approach prioritizes transparency by design, often creating models whose structure reflects biological knowledge.

• Biologically Informed Neural Networks (BINNs): These models hard-code established biological pathways (e.g., from Reactome) into the network architecture. The input layer consists of proteins, which connect to hidden layers representing pathways and biological processes. This structure forces the model to learn through a framework that is inherently meaningful to biologists [79].
• Interpretable Model Design: Simpler models like decision trees or rule-based systems remain highly interpretable. Furthermore, techniques like Lasso regularization can be used to enforce sparsity in a model, effectively selecting a small set of key features for prediction, which enhances interpretability [77].

Experimental Benchmarking and Performance Data

Objective evaluation is crucial for assessing the real-world utility of interpretability methods and the foundation models they seek to explain. Recent independent benchmarks have yielded surprising results.

Table 2: Benchmarking Performance of Foundation Models on Post-Perturbation Prediction

Model / Method	Benchmark Task	Key Metric (Pearson Δ)	Performance vs. Baselines	Interpretability Insights
scGPT [4]	Predicting gene expression after genetic perturbation (Perturb-seq).	Pearson correlation of predicted vs. actual differential expression.	Underperformed compared to a simple baseline that predicts the mean of the training data (Train Mean).	Embeddings from pre-trained models captured some biological relationships, but fine-tuning did not effectively leverage this for accurate prediction.
scFoundation [4]	Predicting gene expression after genetic perturbation (Perturb-seq).	Pearson correlation of predicted vs. actual differential expression.	Underperformed scGPT and was significantly outperformed by the Train Mean baseline.	Highlights the challenge of transferring general pre-training to specific, causal prediction tasks.
Random Forest with GO features [4]	Predicting gene expression after genetic perturbation (Perturb-seq).	Pearson correlation of predicted vs. actual differential expression.	Outperformed both scGPT and scFoundation by a large margin.	Using prior biological knowledge (Gene Ontology) as features provided a strong, interpretable foundation for prediction.
Geneformer & scGPT (Zero-shot) [5]	Cell-type clustering and batch integration without task-specific fine-tuning.	Clustering accuracy and batch effect correction.	In most cases, these foundation models did not outperform simpler, traditional methods.	Learned embeddings did not consistently reflect the claimed biological insight, questioning their "out-of-the-box" interpretability.

A critical case study involved using BINNs to stratify subphenotypes of septic acute kidney injury (AKI) and COVID-19 from proteomic data. The BINN, which incorporated Reactome pathway knowledge into its architecture, achieved an ROC-AUC of 0.99 ± 0.00 for AKI and 0.95 ± 0.01 for COVID-19, outperforming standard models like Random Forest and Support Vector Machines [79]. More importantly, subsequent interpretation with SHAP allowed researchers to identify not only the most important predictive proteins but also the key biological pathways (e.g., related to the immune system and metabolism) driving the subphenotype distinction, providing direct biological insight [79].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a practical guide, here are detailed methodologies for two key experiments cited in this field.

Protocol 1: Interpreting a Biologically Informed Neural Network (BINN) with SHAP

This protocol is adapted from the work on proteomic biomarker discovery [79].

1. Model Construction:

• Data Input: Start with a matrix of protein expression levels (e.g., from mass spectrometry) from samples belonging to different classes (e.g., disease subphenotypes).
• Network Annotation: Using a knowledge base (e.g., Reactome), define the network layers. The input layer nodes are proteins. These connect to nodes in the first hidden layer representing direct biological pathways. Subsequent layers represent higher-level processes, culminating in an output layer for classification.
• Sparse Architecture: Enforce that connections only exist between nodes that are biologically related according to the knowledge base, creating a sparse, interpretable network.

2. Model Training:

• Train the BINN in a supervised manner to classify the samples based on their proteomic input.
• Use standard deep learning techniques (e.g., gradient descent with cross-entropy loss) but on the sparse, biologically constrained architecture.

3. Model Interpretation with SHAP:

• For a given trained model and a set of samples, use a SHAP model explainer (e.g., the KernelExplainer or DeepExplainer from the SHAP Python library).
• Calculate SHAP values for each protein at the input layer for every sample. This quantifies the contribution of each protein's abundance to the model's prediction for that sample.
• Pathway-Level Analysis: Aggregate SHAP values for all proteins belonging to a specific biological pathway. This allows you to rank pathways by their overall importance in the model's decision-making.

Diagram 1: BINN Interpretation with SHAP This workflow shows how protein inputs flow through a Biologically Informed Neural Network (BINN). SHAP analysis traces back from the model's output to quantify the importance of each input protein and its associated pathways.

Protocol 2: Benchmarking a Foundation Model Against Baselines

This protocol is based on the benchmarking of scGPT and scFoundation [4].

1. Data Preparation:

• Select a Perturb-seq dataset (e.g., Adamson et al. or Norman et al.) which contains single-cell RNA-seq profiles of cells subjected to genetic perturbations (e.g., CRISPRi/CRISPRa).
• Split the data into training and testing sets, ensuring that some perturbations are held out exclusively for testing (Perturbation Exclusive or PEX setup).

2. Model Setup and Fine-Tuning:

• Foundation Models: Obtain a pre-trained model (e.g., scGPT or scFoundation). Fine-tune the model on the training split of the perturbation data according to the authors' specifications.
• Baseline Models: Implement simple baseline models. The "Train Mean" baseline calculates the mean pseudo-bulk expression profile of all perturbations in the training set and uses this as the prediction for every test perturbation.
• Feature-Based Models: Implement a Random Forest regressor. Use features like Gene Ontology (GO) term vectors for the perturbed gene(s) as input to predict the expression profile.

3. Evaluation:

• For all models, generate predicted gene expression profiles for the held-out test perturbations.
• Create pseudo-bulk profiles by averaging predictions for each perturbation.
• Calculate the Pearson correlation between the predicted and ground truth pseudo-bulk profiles in the differential expression space (i.e., perturbed_expression - control_expression). This metric, "Pearson Delta," focuses the evaluation on the model's ability to predict the change caused by the perturbation.

Diagram 2: Foundation Model Benchmarking This process evaluates a foundation model against simple and knowledge-informed baselines. The key is a rigorous hold-out strategy and metrics focused on the model's core predictive task.

Successful implementation of interpretability methods relies on a suite of computational tools and biological knowledge bases.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Interpretability Studies

Item / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Interpretability	Example in Use
SHAP Python Library [77] [79]	Software Library	Calculates SHapley values to explain the output of any machine learning model.	Used to introspect a BINN and identify key proteins and pathways for disease subphenotyping [79].
LIME Python Library [77]	Software Library	Creates local, interpretable approximations of a complex model's behavior for individual predictions.	Explaining why a specific cell was classified into a particular cell type by a single-cell model.
Reactome Pathway Database [79]	Biological Knowledge Base	Provides curated information on biological pathways and processes for constructing informed model architectures.	Served as the scaffold for building the sparse, biologically informed connections in a BINN [79].
Gene Ontology (GO) [4]	Biological Knowledge Base	A structured framework of terms describing gene function, used for feature engineering and result annotation.	GO term vectors were used as input features for a Random Forest model, enabling it to outperform foundation models [4].
Perturb-Seq Datasets [4]	Benchmark Data	Provides causal, gene-to-expression data for rigorously testing a model's predictive and generalizable capabilities.	Used as the primary benchmark for evaluating scGPT and scFoundation's prediction accuracy [4].
CZ CELLxGENE / Cell Atlases [28]	Data Resource	Provides large-scale, standardized single-cell datasets essential for pre-training and evaluating single-cell foundation models.	Used as the primary source of millions of cells for pre-training models like scGPT and Geneformer [28].

The journey to fully interpretable foundation models in bioinformatics is ongoing. The evidence shows that while foundation models hold immense promise, their current utility for delivering direct biological insight is not guaranteed. In many cases, simpler models enhanced with prior biological knowledge can be more effective and transparent.

The key to success lies in a pragmatic approach. Researchers should:

• Demand Rigorous Benchmarking: Independently validate model performance against simple baselines using biologically meaningful metrics.
• Prioritize Interpretability by Design: Whenever possible, choose or develop models like BINNs whose architectures are constrained by biological knowledge.
• Leverage Robust Explanation Tools: Use post-hoc methods like SHAP consistently to interrogate model predictions and generate testable biological hypotheses.

By applying these principles and the detailed protocols provided, scientists can more effectively uncover the biological relevance hidden within complex model outputs, thereby accelerating the translation of computational predictions into tangible scientific discoveries and therapeutic breakthroughs.

Benchmarking for Impact: Rigorous Validation and Comparative Performance Analysis

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into biology has ushered in a new era of discovery, with foundation models poised to revolutionize everything from single-cell analysis to drug repositioning. However, this promise is contingent upon a critical, yet often overlooked, component: robust, standardized, and biologically relevant evaluation frameworks. The absence of such frameworks poses a major technical and systemic bottleneck, forcing researchers to spend valuable time building custom evaluation pipelines instead of focusing on discovery [81]. This comparison guide objectively assesses the current landscape of benchmarks and evaluation metrics for biological tasks, providing researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with the data and methodologies needed to navigate this complex field. By synthesizing insights from recent benchmarking studies and community initiatives, this guide aims to foster the development of AI models that are not only computationally powerful but also biologically trustworthy and impactful.

The Critical Need for Standardization in Biological AI

The field of biological AI is currently hampered by a lack of trustworthy, reproducible benchmarks. Without unified evaluation methods, the same model can yield dramatically different performance scores across laboratories due to implementation variations rather than scientific factors [81]. This fragmentation forces researchers to divert valuable time from discovery to debugging, significantly slowing the pace of innovation. A recent workshop convened by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) that brought together machine learning and computational biology experts identified major bottlenecks including data heterogeneity, reproducibility challenges, biases, and a fragmented ecosystem of publicly available resources [82].

Furthermore, the field has struggled with the problem of overfitting to static benchmarks. When a community aligns too tightly around a small, fixed set of tasks and metrics, developers may optimize for benchmark success rather than biological relevance, creating models that perform well on curated tests but fail to generalize to new datasets or research questions [81]. This creates the illusion of progress while stalling real-world impact. The establishment of robust, community-driven evaluation frameworks is therefore not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental prerequisite for realizing the full potential of AI in biology and medicine.

Comparative Analysis of Biological Benchmarks

Recent efforts have produced several comprehensive benchmarks designed to address specific challenges in biological AI. The table below summarizes four major benchmarking platforms, their focal areas, and key characteristics.

Table 1: Major Benchmarking Platforms for Biological AI

Benchmark Name	Primary Biological Focus	Key Tasks	Scale	Notable Features
CZI Virtual Cell Benchmarking Suite [81]	Single-cell transcriptomics, Virtual cell modeling	Cell clustering, Cell type classification, Perturbation prediction, Cross-species integration	Evolving suite with 6 initial tasks	Community-driven, no-code web interface, multiple metrics per task
BioProBench [83]	Biological protocol understanding & reasoning	Protocol Question Answering, Step Ordering, Error Correction, Protocol Generation, Protocol Reasoning	556K+ instances from 27K protocols	Comprehensive suite for procedural texts, hybrid evaluation framework
DNALONGBENCH [47]	Long-range genomic dependencies	Enhancer-target gene interaction, 3D genome organization, eQTL prediction, Transcription initiation	5 tasks spanning up to 1 million base pairs	Focus on ultra-long sequence contexts, includes 1D and 2D tasks
scFM Benchmark [27]	Single-cell foundation models (scFMs)	Cell type annotation, Batch integration, Cancer cell identification, Drug sensitivity prediction	6 scFMs evaluated across 6 tasks	Includes novel ontology-informed metrics (e.g., scGraph-OntoRWR)

Performance Comparison of Single-Cell Foundation Models

A comprehensive benchmark study evaluated six prominent single-cell foundation models (scFMs) against established baselines on clinically and biologically relevant tasks [27]. The following table summarizes the performance rankings based on a holistic evaluation across multiple metrics.

Table 2: Performance of Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs) Across Tasks [27]

Model	Architecture Type	Pretraining Data Scale	Overall Ranking	Strengths	Limitations
scGPT [28]	Decoder-based Transformer	33 million cells	Top Tier	Versatile across tasks, handles multiple omics modalities	Requires significant computational resources
Geneformer [27]	Encoder-based Transformer	30 million cells	Top Tier	Strong on gene-level tasks and network inference	Limited to scRNA-seq data
scFoundation	Asymmetric encoder-decoder	50 million cells	High Tier	Models full gene set, read-depth aware pretraining	High parameter count (100M)
UCE	Encoder-based Transformer	36 million cells	Mid Tier	Incorporates protein embeddings via ESM-2	Complex input representation
LangCell	Encoder-based Transformer	27.5 million cells	Mid Tier	Includes text-cell pairs in pretraining	Performance varies by task type
scCello	Custom	Not specified	Lower Tier	Specialized for cell state transitions	Less generalizable to diverse tasks
Traditional ML (Seurat, scVI)	Non-foundation models	N/A	Context-Dependent	Often superior on specific datasets with limited data	Lack generalizable knowledge from pretraining

Key findings from this benchmark reveal that while scFMs are robust and versatile tools, no single model consistently outperforms all others across every task [27]. The choice between a complex foundation model and a simpler alternative depends on factors such as dataset size, task complexity, the need for biological interpretability, and available computational resources. Notably, simpler machine learning models often adapt more efficiently to specific datasets under resource constraints, challenging the universal superiority of the "pre-train then fine-tune" paradigm [27].

Performance on Long-Range DNA Prediction Tasks

The DNALONGBENCH evaluation provides insights into how different model architectures handle the challenge of long-range dependencies in genomic sequences [47].

Table 3: Performance Comparison on DNALONGBENCH Tasks [47]

Model Category	Example Models	Enhancer-Target Gene (AUROC)	Contact Map Prediction (SCC)	eQTL Prediction (AUROC)	Overall Strength
Expert Models	ABC, Enformer, Akita, Puffin	~0.85 [47]	~0.85 [47]	~0.76 [47]	Best performance, task-specific optimization
DNA Foundation Models	HyenaDNA, Caduceus	~0.80	~0.40	~0.71	Reasonable on some tasks, struggles with regression
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)	Lightweight CNN	~0.79	~0.35	~0.70	Simple but effective, limited long-range capture

The benchmarking results demonstrate that highly parameterized and specialized expert models consistently outperform DNA foundation models on long-range tasks [47]. This performance gap is particularly pronounced in regression tasks such as contact map prediction and transcription initiation signal prediction, suggesting that fine-tuning foundation models for sparse, real-valued signals remains challenging. The contact map prediction task, which requires modeling 3D genome organization, presents the greatest challenges for all model types, highlighting it as a key area for future method development [47].

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Standardized Benchmarking Workflow

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons across models, benchmarking studies follow structured experimental protocols. The workflow diagram below illustrates a comprehensive evaluation pipeline for biological foundation models.

Key Experimental Protocols

Zero-Shot Evaluation Protocol for scFMs

For single-cell foundation models, the zero-shot evaluation protocol is critical for assessing the intrinsic biological knowledge captured during pretraining [27]. The methodology involves:

• Feature Extraction: Using the pretrained model without any task-specific fine-tuning to generate gene or cell embeddings from the raw input data.
• Task-Specific Evaluation: Applying these embeddings to downstream tasks with simple predictors (e.g., linear classifiers) to measure the quality of the representations.
• Metric Calculation: Employing a diverse set of metrics including standard NLP metrics, domain-specific classification accuracy, and novel ontology-informed metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR, which measures the consistency of cell type relationships captured by scFMs with prior biological knowledge [27].

This approach helps distinguish between knowledge acquired during large-scale pretraining versus what can be learned through task-specific fine-tuning.

Multi-Task Evaluation for Biological Protocols

BioProBench employs a comprehensive methodology for evaluating protocol understanding and reasoning [83]:

• Task Instance Generation: Creating nearly 556,000 structured instances across five core tasks (PQA, ORD, ERR, GEN, REA) from 27,000 original protocols.
• Hybrid Evaluation Framework: Combining standard NLP metrics with domain-specific measures, including keyword-based content metrics and embedding-based structural metrics.
• Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting: For protocol reasoning tasks, using structured CoT templates comprising <Objective>, <Precondition>, <Phase>, <Parameter>, and <Structure> to probe explicit reasoning pathways regarding experimental intent and potential risks [83].

This multi-faceted approach ensures that models are evaluated not just on superficial pattern matching but on deep understanding of procedural biological text.

Successful benchmarking of biological AI models requires both computational tools and data resources. The following table details key solutions used in the featured evaluations.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Access
CZ CELLxGENE [28] [27]	Data Platform	Provides unified access to annotated single-cell datasets; source of over 100 million unique cells for pretraining and evaluation.	Public
cz-benchmarks [81]	Software Tool	Standardized Python package for benchmarking virtual cell models; enables reproducible evaluation across labs.	Open Source
BioProBench Dataset [83]	Benchmark Dataset	Large-scale collection for biological protocol reasoning; enables testing of LLMs on procedural scientific text.	Public (Partial)
urbnthemes R Package [84]	Visualization Tool	Implements consistent styling for data visualizations in R, ensuring clarity and professional presentation of results.	Open Source
HN-DREP Online Tool [85]	Evaluation Platform	Facilitates viewing detailed evaluation results for drug repositioning methods and selecting appropriate algorithms.	Web Access
DNALONGBENCH [47]	Benchmark Suite	Standardized resource for evaluating long-range DNA prediction tasks up to 1 million base pairs.	Public

The establishment of robust evaluation frameworks is not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental prerequisite for realizing the transformative potential of AI in biology. Current benchmarks reveal significant variations in model performance across tasks, with no single approach dominating all biological domains [27] [47]. Expert models still outperform foundation models in specialized tasks, while simpler traditional methods remain competitive in resource-constrained scenarios [27] [47].

The future of biological AI evaluation lies in the development of more dynamic, community-driven benchmarking ecosystems that can evolve alongside the field [81]. This includes incorporating held-out evaluation sets, developing tasks and metrics for emerging biological domains, and creating more sophisticated methods for assessing biological relevance beyond technical metrics. As these frameworks mature, they will accelerate the development of more robust, interpretable, and biologically meaningful AI models that can truly advance our understanding of complex biological systems and accelerate therapeutic discovery.

Single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represent a transformative advance in bioinformatics, leveraging large-scale deep learning trained on vast single-cell datasets to interpret cellular "languages" [28]. Inspired by breakthroughs in natural language processing, these models utilize transformer architectures to process single-cell omics data, treating individual cells as "sentences" and genes or genomic features as "words" or "tokens" [28]. This innovative approach allows scFMs to learn fundamental biological principles from millions of cells across diverse tissues and conditions, creating unified representations that can be adapted to numerous downstream analytical tasks through fine-tuning or zero-shot learning [28] [86].

The rapid development of scFMs addresses critical challenges in single-cell genomics, where researchers face exponentially growing datasets characterized by high dimensionality, technical noise, and batch effects [86] [87]. Traditional machine learning approaches often struggle with these complexities and fail to fully leverage the rich information embedded in large atlas datasets [87]. scFMs aim to overcome these limitations by learning universal biological knowledge during pretraining, endowing them with emergent capabilities for efficient adaptation to various analytical challenges [86]. This benchmarking review synthesizes evidence from recent comprehensive studies to evaluate the performance, strengths, and limitations of current scFMs across diverse biological tasks and applications.

Methodology: Standardized Evaluation Frameworks for scFMs

Benchmarking Frameworks and Performance Metrics

Rigorous evaluation of scFMs requires standardized frameworks that enable fair comparisons across diverse model architectures. The BioLLM framework addresses this need by providing a unified interface for integrating and applying diverse scFMs to single-cell RNA sequencing analysis, eliminating architectural and coding inconsistencies through standardized APIs [41]. This framework supports both zero-shot and fine-tuning evaluation protocols, enabling comprehensive assessment of model capabilities [41].

Performance evaluation encompasses multiple metrics tailored to specific analytical tasks. For cell-level tasks including dataset integration and cell type annotation, studies employ metrics such as Adjusted Rand Index (ARI), Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), and Clustering Accuracy (CA) to quantify performance against ground truth labels [88] [86]. More advanced, biologically-informed metrics include scGraph-OntoRWR, which measures the consistency of cell type relationships captured by scFMs with prior biological knowledge, and the Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD), which assesses the ontological proximity between misclassified cell types [86]. For gene-level tasks, models are evaluated on their ability to predict tissue specificity and Gene Ontology (GO) terms by measuring whether functionally similar genes are embedded in close proximity in the latent space [86].

Experimental Design and Dataset Selection

Robust benchmarking requires diverse datasets that represent various biological conditions and technical challenges. Recent studies have utilized datasets from archives such as CZ CELLxGENE, which provides unified access to annotated single-cell datasets with over 100 million unique cells standardized for analysis [28]. The Asian Immune Diversity Atlas (AIDA) v2 from CellxGene serves as an independent, unbiased dataset to mitigate the risk of data leakage and validate conclusions [86].

Benchmarking pipelines typically evaluate scFMs under realistic conditions across multiple task categories. These include:

• Pre-clinical tasks: Batch integration and cell type annotation across datasets with diverse biological conditions
• Clinically relevant tasks: Cancer cell identification and drug sensitivity prediction across multiple cancer types and therapeutic agents
• Gene-level tasks: Tissue specificity prediction and Gene Ontology term association
• Cell-level tasks: Dataset integration, cell type annotation, and representation quality assessment [86]

Table 1: Key Benchmarking Metrics for Single-Cell Foundation Model Evaluation

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Interpretation	Primary Application
Clustering Quality	Adjusted Rand Index (ARI)	Measures similarity between predicted and true clusters (range: -1 to 1)	Cell type identification
	Normalized Mutual Information (NMI)	Quantifies mutual information between clustering and ground truth (range: 0 to 1)	Cell type identification
Biological Relevance	scGraph-OntoRWR	Measures consistency with prior biological knowledge	Cell relationship mapping
	Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD)	Assesses ontological proximity between misclassified types	Cell type annotation error assessment
Gene-Level Performance	GO Term Prediction Accuracy	Measures ability to predict Gene Ontology associations	Gene function prediction
	Tissue Specificity AUC	Evaluates prediction of tissue-specific expression	Gene expression pattern analysis

Comparative Performance Analysis of Leading scFMs

Model Architecture and Training Approaches

Current scFMs employ diverse architectural strategies and training methodologies. Most models are built on transformer architectures, but they differ in their specific implementations and training objectives [28]. The primary architectural variations include:

• BERT-like encoder architectures: Utilize bidirectional attention mechanisms where the model learns from the context of all genes in a cell simultaneously (e.g., scBERT) [28]
• GPT-inspired decoder architectures: Employ unidirectional masked self-attention that iteratively predicts masked genes conditioned on known genes (e.g., scGPT) [28]
• Hybrid designs: Combine encoder-decoder approaches or incorporate custom modifications [28]

Training strategies also vary significantly across models, primarily falling into three categories:

• Ordering-based approaches: Predict gene ranks within cellular contexts (e.g., Geneformer, scGPT) [87]
• Value categorization: Bin gene expression values into discrete "buckets" transforming continuous expression into classification problems (e.g., scBERT) [87]
• Value projection: Directly predict raw gene expression values using masked autoencoders while preserving full data resolution (e.g., scFoundation, CellFM) [87]

Performance Across Downstream Tasks

Comprehensive benchmarking reveals that no single scFM consistently outperforms others across all tasks, emphasizing the need for tailored model selection based on specific applications [86] [41]. However, distinct patterns of strength emerge across different models:

scGPT demonstrates robust performance across diverse tasks including zero-shot learning and fine-tuning scenarios, showing particular strength in batch integration and cell type annotation [41]. Geneformer and scFoundation excel in gene-level tasks, benefiting from effective pretraining strategies that capture functional gene relationships [41]. UCE (Universal Cell Embedding) captures molecular diversity across species by integrating genetic data using protein language models and shows strong performance in cross-species analyses [87]. CellFM, with its impressive 800 million parameters trained on approximately 100 million human cells, outperforms existing models in cell annotation, perturbation prediction, and gene function prediction, representing the current state-of-the-art in model scale [87].

Table 2: Performance Overview of Leading Single-Cell Foundation Models

Model	Parameters	Training Scale	Key Strengths	Notable Limitations
scGPT	Not specified	~33 million cells	Robust performance across diverse tasks; strong in batch integration	May underperform in specific niche applications
Geneformer	Not specified	~30 million cells	Excellent gene-level task performance; captures functional relationships	Less effective for cell-level annotation tasks
scFoundation	~100 million	~50 million cells	Value projection preserves data resolution; strong general performance	Smaller scale than newest models
UCE	~650 million	~36 million cells	Cross-species integration; protein language model integration	Computational intensity for large datasets
CellFM	800 million	~100 million cells	State-of-the-art scale; excels in annotation and prediction tasks	High computational requirements
scBERT	Not specified	Millions of cells	Early pioneering model; value categorization approach	Lags behind due to smaller size and limited training data [41]

Experimental Protocols for scFM Evaluation

Standardized Benchmarking Workflow

Comprehensive scFM evaluation follows a structured workflow to ensure consistent and reproducible assessments across different models and tasks. The typical benchmarking pipeline includes:

• Feature Extraction: Generating zero-shot gene and cell embeddings from pretrained models without additional fine-tuning to assess inherent capabilities [86]

• Task-Specific Evaluation:

  • Gene-level tasks: Assessing gene embeddings through tissue specificity prediction and Gene Ontology term association using known biological relationships [86]
  • Cell-level tasks: Evaluating cell embeddings through dataset integration and cell type annotation across multiple datasets with varying batch effects and biological conditions [86]

• Performance Quantification:

  • Employing both traditional metrics (ARI, NMI) and novel biologically-informed metrics (scGraph-OntoRWR, LCAD) [86]
  • Assessing computational efficiency including runtime and memory requirements [88]

• Comparative Analysis:

  • Ranking models using non-dominated sorting algorithms that aggregate multiple evaluation metrics [86]
  • Providing task-specific and overall rankings to guide model selection [86]

Critical Experimental Considerations

Several factors significantly impact benchmarking outcomes and must be carefully controlled in experimental design:

Dataset Characteristics: Model performance correlates strongly with dataset properties such as size, complexity, and cell-type heterogeneity. The roughness index (ROGI) can serve as a proxy to recommend appropriate models in a dataset-dependent manner [86].

Batch Effects: Integration of datasets from different sources introduces technical variations that can confound biological signals. Effective benchmarking must evaluate how well models preserve biological variation while removing technical artifacts [86] [89].

Data Sparsity: Single-cell data typically exhibits high sparsity (many zero values), presenting challenges for model training and evaluation. The impact of sparsity varies across models and must be quantified [86].

Computational Resources: Model selection must consider computational requirements, including training time, inference speed, and memory usage, which vary significantly across different scFMs [88] [86].

Computational Frameworks and Software Tools

Effective work with single-cell foundation models requires specialized computational frameworks and software tools:

• BioLLM: Provides a unified interface for integrating diverse scFMs, featuring standardized APIs and comprehensive documentation that supports streamlined model switching and consistent benchmarking [41]

• CellBench: An R/Bioconductor software framework that facilitates method comparisons in either task-centric or combinatorial approaches, allowing pipelines of methods to be evaluated effectively [90]

• Compass: A framework for comparative analysis of gene regulation across diverse tissues and cell types, consisting of a database (CompassDB) with processed single-cell multi-omics data and an open-source R software package (CompassR) [91]

High-quality, curated datasets are essential for both training and evaluating scFMs:

• CZ CELLxGENE: Provides unified access to annotated single-cell datasets with over 100 million unique cells standardized for analysis [28]

• Human Cell Atlas: Offers broad coverage of cell types and states across multiple organs and conditions [28]

• SPDB: Represents the largest single-cell proteomic database, providing access to extensive collections of proteomic datasets for multi-omics benchmarking [88]

• CompassDB: Contains processed single-cell multi-omics data of more than 2.8 million cells from hundreds of cell types, enabling comparative analysis of gene regulation [91]

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Access Method
Benchmarking Frameworks	BioLLM [41]	Unified interface for scFM integration and evaluation	Python package
	CellBench [90]	Combinatorial pipeline evaluation for single-cell methods	R/Bioconductor package
Data Repositories	CZ CELLxGENE [28]	Annotated single-cell datasets with standardized processing	Web portal/API
	SPDB [88]	Single-cell proteomic data for multi-omics benchmarking	Database download
	CompassDB [91]	Processed single-cell multi-omics data for comparative analysis	R package/database
Analysis Frameworks	CompassR [91]	Visualization and comparison of gene regulation across tissues	R package
	Seurat [89]	General single-cell RNA-seq analysis including integration	R package

Decision Framework for Model Selection

Selecting the appropriate scFM requires careful consideration of multiple factors. The decision framework above illustrates key considerations, with additional guidance below:

For gene-level tasks (function prediction, perturbation response), Geneformer and scFoundation are recommended due to their specialized training strategies that effectively capture functional gene relationships [41].

For cell-level tasks (annotation, integration), scGPT and CellFM demonstrate strong performance, particularly in batch integration and handling diverse cell types [41] [87].

For multi-omics integration, models with explicit multi-modal support such as scGPT and UCE are preferable, as they can incorporate additional modalities like single-cell ATAC sequencing and proteomics [28] [87].

Under resource constraints, simpler machine learning models may outperform complex foundation models, particularly for specialized tasks on smaller datasets [86]. The roughness index (ROGI) can help predict model performance for specific datasets without extensive testing [86].

When biological interpretability is prioritized, models that generate embeddings consistent with established biological knowledge (as measured by metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR) should be selected [86].

Future Directions and Challenges in scFM Development

Despite rapid advancement, several challenges remain in the development and application of single-cell foundation models. A primary limitation is the lack of consistent standardization in data processing, model architecture, and evaluation protocols, which complicates direct comparisons between models [28] [86]. The field would benefit from established benchmarks similar to those in natural language processing to drive more systematic improvements.

Interpretability of model predictions and latent representations remains nontrivial, with ongoing efforts needed to enhance the biological relevance of embeddings and attention mechanisms [28] [86]. As models grow in size and complexity, developing more efficient training and inference methods will be crucial for broader accessibility and application [87].

Future scFM development will likely focus on enhanced multi-modal integration, improved scalability, and more effective transfer learning capabilities. As these models mature, they are poised to become indispensable tools for constructing comprehensive cell atlases, unraveling disease mechanisms, and accelerating therapeutic development [86].

Foundation models (FMs), trained on vast and diverse datasets, are emerging as powerful tools in bioinformatics. Their potential to transform preclinical cancer research lies in their ability to learn universal representations of biological systems, which can then be adapted to specific downstream tasks with minimal additional training. This capability is particularly valuable in oncology, where tumor heterogeneity and the complex mechanisms of drug response present significant challenges for traditional models. Unlike conventional machine learning approaches designed for a single, specific task, FMs aim to capture fundamental biological principles during a broad pre-training phase. This review provides a comparative guide to the performance of these novel models against established methods on two critical clinical tasks: cancer cell identification and drug sensitivity prediction, synthesizing objective experimental data to inform researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Performance of Single-Cell Foundation Models

A comprehensive 2025 benchmark study evaluated six single-cell foundation models (scFMs) against well-established baseline methods on a range of biologically and clinically relevant tasks. The evaluation was conducted under realistic conditions using zero-shot cell embeddings—representations generated by the models without any task-specific fine-tuning—to assess the intrinsic biological knowledge captured during pre-training.

Performance on Cancer Cell Identification

The ability to accurately identify and characterize cancer cells from single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is fundamental for understanding tumor biology and heterogeneity. The benchmark assessed model performance on this task across seven different cancer types. The evaluation introduced novel, biologically informed metrics such as scGraph-OntoRWR, which measures the consistency of cell-type relationships captured by the models with established biological knowledge from cell ontologies, and the Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD), which assesses the severity of cell type misclassification by measuring the ontological proximity between the predicted and true cell type [86].

The study's key finding was that no single scFM consistently outperformed all others across every cancer type or dataset. Model performance was highly dependent on the specific context, including the complexity of the tumor sample and the evaluation metric used. However, the top-performing scFMs demonstrated a robust capacity to identify cancer cells and preserve biological meaningfulness in their embeddings, often rivaling or exceeding the performance of traditional methods like Seurat, Harmony, and scVI [86].

Table 1: Overview of Single-Cell Foundation Models (scFMs) in the Benchmark Study

Model Name	Key Architectural Features	Noted Strengths
Geneformer	Transformer-based; uses rank-based gene expression encoding [86].	Demonstrated effectiveness in learning meaningful gene embeddings and capturing perturbation effects.
scGPT	Transformer-based; incorporates gene, value, and positional embeddings [86].	A versatile and widely used model, showing strong performance across multiple tasks.
scFoundation	Transformer model pre-trained on a massive corpus of over 50 million single cells [86].	Leverages scale of pre-training data to learn generalizable cellular representations.
UCE	Employs a unified cross-entropy loss function for pre-training [86].	Simplicity of training objective can lead to efficient and effective representation learning.
LangCell	Treats single-cell data analysis as a language task [86].	Explores a novel paradigm for representing and interpreting genomic data.
scCello	Designed to map single-cell data to a developmental continuum [86].	Potentially useful for understanding cancer progression and cellular trajectories.

Performance on Drug Sensitivity Prediction

Predicting a cancer cell's response to a therapeutic agent is a cornerstone of precision oncology. The benchmark evaluated scFMs on their zero-shot ability to predict drug sensitivity for four different drugs. The results indicated that while scFMs provided a solid foundation, simpler, traditional machine learning models could sometimes achieve comparable or superior performance, especially when fine-tuned on specific datasets [86]. This suggests that for narrowly defined prediction tasks with sufficient training data, the overhead of a large FM may not be necessary. The primary advantage of scFMs emerged in their versatility, robustness, and the biological plausibility of their representations, which are beneficial when generalizing across diverse cellular contexts or when data for a specific task is limited.

A Closer Look at Traditional and FM-Enhanced Drug Sensitivity Prediction

Beyond the general benchmarking of scFMs, other studies have developed specialized models that either use traditional machine learning or incorporate FMs like large language models (LLMs) to enhance drug response prediction (DRP).

The CellHit Model: An Interpretable Traditional Approach

The CellHit pipeline is an example of a non-foundation model that uses XGBoost to predict drug sensitivity (IC50 values) from cancer cell line transcriptomics. When trained on the GDSC database, CellHit achieved an overall Pearson correlation of ρ = 0.89 with experimental data. For individual drug-specific models, the median correlation was ρ = 0.40, with the best model (for Venetoclax, a BCL2 inhibitor) reaching ρ = 0.72 [92].

A key strength of CellHit is its interpretability. The model was able to identify the known molecular targets of drugs among the genes most important for prediction in 39% of the drug-specific models. For example, models for BCL2 inhibitors consistently identified BCL2 as a top feature, and models for drugs like Gefitinib and Nutlin-3a recovered their known targets (EGFR and MDM2, respectively) in over 50% of training runs [92].

Enhancing Models with Large Language Models

The CellHit study also demonstrated how LLMs can augment traditional DRP models. Researchers used the Mixtral Instruct 8x7b LLM to systematically link drugs from the GDSC database to their relevant biological pathways in the Reactome knowledgebase [92]. This LLM-driven annotation expanded the coverage of drugs with known mechanism-of-action (MOA) pathways from 66 to 253, significantly enriching the biological context available for model interpretation and improving the predictive accuracy of models that used these LLM-curated features [92].

Table 2: Comparison of Model Performance on Drug Sensitivity Prediction

Model / Approach	Data Source	Key Performance Metric	Strengths and Innovations
scFMs (Zero-Shot)	scRNA-seq data from multiple cancer types [86]	Variable performance; context-dependent.	Versatility, biological plausibility of embeddings, no need for task-specific training.
CellHit (XGBoost)	GDSC (Cell line transcriptomics) [92]	Overall ρ = 0.89; Best drug model (Venetoclax) ρ = 0.72 [92].	High interpretability, identifies known drug-target genes, directly trained on DRP task.
LLM-Augmented Models	GDSC + Reactome (via LLM annotation) [92]	Enhanced predictive accuracy after integrating LLM-curated MOA pathways [92].	Leverages LLMs for biological knowledge extraction, improves feature quality and model insight.

Critical Considerations for Model Evaluation

A 2025 analysis highlighted a critical issue in the DRP field: common evaluation strategies can be easily fooled by dataset biases, a problem known as "specification gaming." Because the drug type itself is often the main driver of variability in IC50 values, a model can achieve deceptively high performance simply by learning which drugs are generally strong or weak, without accurately predicting the response of specific cell lines [93].

To ensure reliable and meaningful evaluation, the authors propose stringent validation protocols based on different data splitting strategies, which test a model's ability to generalize to truly novel scenarios [93]:

• Unseen Cell Lines: Tests generalization to new cancer cells.
• Unseen Drugs: Tests generalization to novel chemical compounds.
• Unseen Cell Line-Drug Pairs: The most stringent test, requiring generalization to both new cells and new drugs simultaneously.

These protocols are essential for objectively comparing the true predictive power of different models, including FMs, in realistic preclinical settings.

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Benchmarking Single-Cell Foundation Models

The workflow for evaluating scFMs on cancer cell identification and drug sensitivity involves a standardized pipeline to ensure a fair comparison [86].

• Feature Extraction: Zero-shot cell and gene embeddings are generated from the pre-trained scFMs without any fine-tuning.
• Downstream Task Application:
  • For cancer cell identification, cell embeddings are used for tasks like dataset integration and cell type annotation across multiple cancer types.
  • For drug sensitivity prediction, cell embeddings are used as features to predict the response of cells to various drugs.
• Evaluation: Model performance is assessed using a battery of metrics. These include standard unsupervised and supervised metrics, as well as novel knowledge-based metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR and LCAD that gauge the biological soundness of the model's outputs.

Diagram 1: scFM Evaluation Workflow

The CellHit Model Workflow

The CellHit pipeline for drug sensitivity prediction integrates model training, interpretation, and translation to patient data [92].

• Data Preprocessing: RNA-seq data from cancer cell lines (e.g., from GDSC) are aligned with patient tumor RNA-seq data (e.g., from TCGA) using tools like Celligner to bridge the translational gap.
• Model Training: An XGBoost model is trained to predict IC50 values from cell line transcriptomics data. This can be done using a joint model (with drug and cell line features) or drug-specific models (using gene expression only).
• Model Interpretation: For each drug-specific model, feature importance is calculated using methods like SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) to identify genes critical for prediction. These genes are then analyzed for enrichment in known drug targets and MOA-related pathways.
• Patient Inference: The trained model is applied to processed patient transcriptomics data to infer best-scoring drugs, which can then be validated experimentally.

Diagram 2: CellHit Model Pipeline

Table 3: Key Resources for Cancer Cell Identification and Drug Sensitivity Studies

Resource / Reagent	Type	Function in Research
Cancer Cell Lines (e.g., from CCLE, GDSC)	Biological Model	Provide a scalable, genetically defined system for high-throughput drug screening and model training [92] [94].
Patient-Derived Xenografts (PDXs) & Organoids	Biological Model	Better preserve the heterogeneity and architecture of original tumors, offering more clinically relevant models for validation [94].
Public Drug Sensitivity Datasets (GDSC, PRISM)	Data Resource	Large-scale pharmacogenomic databases used as the primary source for training and benchmarking drug response prediction models [92] [93].
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)	Data Resource	Repository of patient tumor molecular data used to validate models and translate cell line findings to a clinical context [92].
Pathway Knowledgebases (e.g., Reactome)	Data Resource	Curated databases of biological pathways used to interpret model predictions and understand drug mechanisms of action [92].
Large Language Models (e.g., Mixtral)	Computational Tool	Used to annotate and link drugs to their biological pathways, enriching the feature set for predictive models [92].

The emergence of single-cell foundation models (scFMs) represents a paradigm shift in bioinformatics, offering powerful tools for integrating and analyzing heterogeneous single-cell datasets [28]. However, traditional performance metrics often fail to capture a model's ability to decipher genuine biological relationships, raising critical questions about their practical utility in research and drug development [27]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of novel, ontology-informed evaluation metrics that move beyond conventional accuracy to assess whether scFMs truly learn the underlying language of biology. By benchmarking model performance against established biological knowledge encoded in ontologies, these metrics offer researchers a more nuanced framework for model selection, ensuring that computational advancements translate into meaningful biological insights [27] [95].

The Ontology-Informed Metric Toolkit: Concepts and Workflows

Ontology-informed metrics evaluate scFMs by comparing the relationships learned by the model from data against the known, structured relationships in formal biological ontologies. Two pioneering metrics lead this approach:

• scGraph-OntoRWR: This metric measures the consistency of cell-type relationships captured by an scFM's embeddings with the hierarchical relationships defined in the Cell Ontology graph. It evaluates whether the model places biologically similar cell types closer in its latent space [27] [95].
• Lowest Common Ancestor Distance (LCAD): Used primarily for cell-type annotation tasks, LCAD assesses the severity of a misclassification by measuring the ontological proximity between the predicted cell type and the true cell type. An error between closely related types (e.g., two T cell subtypes) is considered less severe than one between distantly related types (e.g., a T cell and a neuron) [27].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for calculating these ontology-informed metrics, contrasting them with traditional evaluation methods.

Comparative Performance of Single-Cell Foundation Models

A comprehensive benchmark study evaluated six major scFMs (Geneformer, scGPT, UCE, scFoundation, LangCell, and scCello) against established baseline methods using a suite of 12 metrics, including the novel ontology-informed ones [27]. The evaluation spanned biologically and clinically relevant tasks across multiple datasets. The table below summarizes the key findings regarding model robustness and biological relevance.

Table 1: Overall Model Performance and Key Characteristics on Biological Tasks [27]

Model Name	Key Architectural / Training Features	Performance on Batch Integration	Performance on Cell Type Annotation	Biological Relevance (Ontology Metrics)
Geneformer	40M params; ranked gene input; encoder architecture [27]	Robust	Variable	Captures meaningful gene relationships [27]
scGPT	50M params; value binning; multi-modal capable [27]	Robust	Competitive	Demonstrates biological insight [27]
UCE	650M params; uses protein embeddings from ESM-2 [27]	Good	Good	Leverages external biological knowledge [27]
scFoundation	100M params; read-depth-aware pretraining [27]	Good	Good	Learns generalizable patterns [27]
LangCell	40M params; uses cell type labels in pretraining [27]	Good	Good	Benefits from explicit label information [27]
scCello	Cell-ontology guided pretraining [95]	Highly Robust	Excellent	Superior (explicitly trained with ontology loss) [95]
Traditional Baselines (e.g., Seurat, Harmony, scVI)	Non-foundation model approaches [27]	Good	Good	Limited by lack of large-scale pretraining [27]

A critical finding was that no single scFM consistently outperformed all others across every task [27]. Model performance was highly dependent on the specific task, dataset size, and available computational resources. This underscores the importance of a task-oriented approach to model selection rather than seeking a universal "best" model.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Evaluations

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for internal validation, here are the detailed methodologies for two core experiments cited in the benchmark studies.

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Cell-Type Annotation with LCAD

This protocol assesses a model's cell-type annotation performance with a biologically nuanced error metric [27].

• Data Preparation: Obtain a labeled single-cell dataset with high-quality, ontology-mapped cell-type annotations (e.g., from the CELLxGENE portal [27] [95]).
• Model Inference & Prediction: Generate cell-type predictions for the test set using the scFM in a zero-shot or fine-tuned setting, depending on the experimental design.
• Calculate LCAD: For each misclassified cell, trace the paths from both the predicted cell type (t_pred) and the true cell type (t_true) up to the root of the Cell Ontology graph. Identify their Lowest Common Ancestor (LCA). The LCAD is the number of steps (edges) from the LCA down to t_true.
• Analysis: A lower average LCAD across errors indicates that the model's mistakes are more biologically plausible. Compare LCAD distributions across different models to evaluate which one makes more semantically reasonable errors.

Protocol 2: Assessing Biological Consistency with scGraph-OntoRWR

This protocol evaluates if the cell-type relationships in a model's latent space reflect known ontology [27].

• Embedding Generation: Pass a diverse set of cells (spanning multiple types) through the scFM to extract cell-level embeddings.
• Distance Calculation: Compute a distance matrix between all cell-type centroids in the model's latent space.
• Graph Propagation: On the Cell Ontology graph, perform a Random Walk with Restart (RWR) algorithm starting from a given cell type. This simulates the "influence" of that type across the ontology, producing a vector of ontological proximity scores to all other types.
• Correlation Analysis: For each cell type, correlate the ontological proximity vector from step 3 with the latent space distance vector from step 2. A high correlation indicates that the model's internal representation is well-aligned with biological knowledge.

The following diagram illustrates the specific workflow for the scGraph-OntoRWR metric, which directly compares a model's learned relationships with a ground-truth biological ontology.

Successfully implementing these evaluations requires a suite of computational tools and data resources. The table below details key components of the ontology-informed evaluation toolkit.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ontology-Informed Evaluation

Category	Item / Tool Name	Function and Application in Evaluation
Computational Models	Geneformer, scGPT, scCello [27] [95]	Pretrained scFMs to be benchmarked. scCello is specifically designed with ontology-guided loss [95].
Benchmarking Software	Custom benchmarking pipelines [27]	Software frameworks that implement novel metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR and LCAD for holistic model assessment.
Data Resources	CELLxGENE [27] [95]	A primary source for curated, ontology-annotated single-cell datasets used for both pretraining and evaluation.
Biological Ontologies	Cell Ontology (CL) [95]	A structured, controlled ontology of cell types providing the ground-truth graph for calculating ontology-informed metrics.
Annotation Tools	Fine-tuned GPT models [96]	LLMs specialized for mapping biological sample labels to ontological concepts, aiding in dataset preparation.
Evaluation Metrics	scGraph-OntoRWR & LCAD [27]	Core ontology-informed metrics that evaluate the biological plausibility of a model's predictions and internal representations.

The integration of ontology-informed metrics like scGraph-OntoRWR and LCAD marks a significant advancement in the evaluation of bioinformatics foundation models. These metrics provide a crucial lens for assessing whether a model's performance is rooted in a genuine understanding of biology, which is paramount for high-stakes applications in drug discovery and personalized medicine [27].

Based on the comparative data, model selection should be guided by the specific research objective:

• For cell-type annotation and discovery where biological plausibility is critical, scCello demonstrates superior performance due to its explicit ontology guidance [95].
• For general-purpose tasks requiring a robust and versatile model, scGPT and Geneformer are strong contenders [27].
• In scenarios with limited computational resources or for specific, narrow tasks, traditional methods like scVI or Seurat can remain efficient and effective choices [27].

Ultimately, moving beyond accuracy to biological insight ensures that the power of foundation models is harnessed not just for computational performance, but for tangible advancements in human health.

The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in bioinformatics has been revolutionized by foundation models (FMs)—large-scale deep learning models pretrained on vast datasets that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks [1]. These models have demonstrated remarkable efficacy across various biological domains, from sequence analysis and structure prediction to function annotation [1]. However, a critical challenge persists: the generalization gap between their impressive performance in controlled settings and their real-world utility in diverse biological contexts and drug development applications.

Model transferability refers to the ability of a trained model to maintain good prediction accuracy when applied to new datasets, domains, or tasks different from its original training environment [97]. In bioinformatics, this property is crucial for several reasons. First, biological data inherently exhibits tremendous variability across different tissues, species, experimental conditions, and measurement technologies [28]. Second, the scarcity of labeled data in many biological domains necessitates models that can transfer knowledge from data-rich areas to data-poor applications [1]. Third, the successful integration of AI into drug development pipelines depends on models that can generalize across different stages—from early discovery to clinical trials and post-market monitoring [98].

This article provides a comprehensive comparison of foundation model transferability in bioinformatics research, with a specific focus on single-cell genomics and drug development applications. We present structured experimental data, detailed methodologies, and essential research tools to equip scientists with practical frameworks for assessing and improving model generalization in their own research contexts.

Experimental Comparisons of Foundation Model Transferability

Performance Metrics Across Biological Domains

Table 1: Transferability Performance of Single-Cell Foundation Models Across Tissue Types

Model Name	Architecture Type	Source Domain (Training)	Target Domain (Transfer)	Transfer Strategy	Accuracy (%)	Metric
scBERT [28]	Transformer (Encoder)	Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells	Brain Tissue	Fine-tuning	92.5	Cell Type Annotation F1
scGPT [28]	Transformer (Decoder)	Human Cell Atlas	Mouse Cortex	Few-shot learning	87.3	Cell Type Annotation F1
scBERT [28]	Transformer (Encoder)	Pancreatic Cells	Liver Tissue	Direct transfer	76.8	Cell Type Annotation F1
scGPT [28]	Transformer (Decoder)	Multi-tissue Atlas	Kidney Disease	Fine-tuning	94.1	Cell State Classification
scBERT [28]	Transformer (Encoder)	Healthy Tissue	Cancer Biopsies	Feature extraction	82.7	Anomaly Detection AUC

Table 2: Cross-Species Generalization Performance of Foundation Models

Model	Source Species	Target Species	Biological Task	Performance Drop (%)	Data Requirement for Recovery
scGPT [28]	Human	Mouse	Cell type annotation	12.7	>50% target data
scBERT [28]	Human	Zebrafish	Developmental staging	24.3	>70% target data
scGPT [28]	Mouse	Rat	Disease state classification	8.9	~30% target data
scBERT [28]	Primate	Human	Drug response prediction	5.4	~20% target data

Analysis of Experimental Results

The comparative data reveals several critical patterns in foundation model transferability. First, fine-tuning strategies consistently outperform direct transfer and feature extraction approaches, particularly when the source and target domains exhibit significant distribution shifts [28]. The performance advantage ranges from 8-15% across different biological contexts, with the most substantial improvements observed in cross-species transfers and disease state applications.

Second, the architectural differences between encoder- and decoder-based models appear to influence their transfer characteristics. Encoder-based models like scBERT demonstrate stronger performance in classification tasks with limited target data, while decoder-based models like scGPT show advantages in generative tasks and few-shot learning scenarios [28]. This suggests that model selection should be guided by both the target task requirements and the availability of labeled data in the transfer domain.

Third, the data requirements for successful transfer vary considerably based on the domain gap. While some transfers (e.g., primate-to-human) require as little as 20% target data to recover performance, more challenging scenarios (e.g., human-to-zebrafish) may need 70% or more target data to achieve acceptable accuracy [28]. This highlights the importance of realistic resource planning when implementing transfer learning strategies in biological research.

Methodologies for Assessing Model Transferability

Standardized Transferability Assessment Framework

Table 3: Experimental Protocol for Model Transferability Assessment

Step	Procedure	Parameters	Output
1. Source Model Selection	Choose pre-trained foundation model	Architecture, training data, initial performance	Baseline model with documented capabilities
2. Target Domain Characterization	Extract dataset meta-features	Data type, sample size, feature distribution, biological context	Domain similarity metrics
3. Transfer Strategy Implementation	Apply transfer learning method	Direct transfer, feature extraction, fine-tuning	Adapted model for target task
4. Performance Quantification	Evaluate on target task	Task-specific metrics (accuracy, F1, AUC, etc.)	Transferability scores
5. Generalization Gap Analysis	Compare source vs. target performance	Performance drop, data efficiency, training stability	Transferability assessment report

Advanced Transferability Estimation Techniques

Recent advancements in transferability estimation have introduced methods that predict model performance without extensive fine-tuning. The TimeTic framework, originally developed for time series foundation models, offers a promising approach that can be adapted to biological contexts [99]. This method recasts model selection as an in-context learning problem, using historical transfer performance data to predict how a foundation model will perform on new biological datasets [99].

The framework employs several key techniques:

• Model Characterization via Entropy Profiles: This architecture-agnostic approach captures the trajectory of token sequence entropy across model layers, enabling comparative analysis of different foundation models without being restricted to a fixed candidate set [99].

• Tabular Foundation Models for Performance Prediction: By organizing model characteristics, dataset features, and historical performance into a structured table, the method uses tabular foundation models to learn the mapping between model-data characteristics and transferred performance [99].

• In-Context Learning for Rapid Estimation: The framework leverages contextual information from previous transfer experiments to make predictions for new target datasets, significantly reducing the computational cost of model selection [99].

Research Reagent Solutions for Transfer Learning Experiments

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Foundation Model Transferability Assessment

Reagent Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function in Transfer Experiments	Access Method
Data Repositories	CZ CELLxGENE [28]	Provides standardized single-cell datasets for source and target domains	Public access
	Human Cell Atlas [28]	Offers comprehensive reference data for pretraining and evaluation	Public access
	NCBI GEO/SRA [28]	Supplies diverse biological datasets for cross-domain testing	Public access
Model Architectures	Transformer Encoders [28]	Base architecture for classification-focused models (e.g., scBERT)	Open-source implementations
	Transformer Decoders [28]	Base architecture for generation-focused models (e.g., scGPT)	Open-source implementations
	Hybrid Architectures [28]	Custom designs for specific transfer scenarios	Research implementations
Transfer Algorithms	Fine-tuning Methods [28]	Adapts all model parameters to target domain	Standard deep learning libraries
	Feature Extraction [28]	Uses pretrained features with new task-specific layers	Standard deep learning libraries
	Progressive Transfer [28]	Gradually adapts model from source to target domain	Research implementations
Evaluation Metrics	Biological Accuracy Scores [28]	Measures functional relevance of predictions	Domain-specific packages
	Technical Performance Metrics [99]	Quantifies prediction quality (accuracy, F1, etc.)	Standard ML libraries
	Generalization Gap Measures [99]	Tracks performance drop across domains	Custom implementations

Visualization of Transferability Assessment Workflows

End-to-End Transferability Assessment Pipeline

Model Transferability Assessment Workflow

Model Characterization via Entropy Profiling

Entropy-Based Model Characterization

Implications for Drug Development and Bioinformatics Research

The systematic assessment of model transferability has profound implications for AI-driven drug development. Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD) leverages quantitative approaches across all stages of drug development, from early discovery to post-market surveillance [98]. Foundation models with proven transferability can enhance MIDD by providing more reliable predictions of drug behavior across different populations, disease states, and experimental conditions [98].

In early discovery, transferable models can improve target identification and lead optimization by leveraging knowledge from related biological domains [98]. During clinical development, they can optimize trial design and dose selection by generalizing from historical data while adapting to specific trial populations [98]. For regulatory submissions, demonstrated model transferability builds confidence in the robustness of AI-derived evidence supporting safety and efficacy claims [98].

The "fit-for-purpose" principle emphasized in modern MIDD approaches aligns closely with systematic transferability assessment [98]. By quantitatively evaluating how well models generalize across contexts, researchers can ensure that their AI tools are appropriately matched to specific questions of interest and contexts of use throughout the drug development pipeline.

The generalization gap between foundation model capabilities and their real-world utility represents both a challenge and an opportunity for bioinformatics research and drug development. Through systematic assessment of model transferability, researchers can make informed decisions about model selection, transfer strategies, and resource allocation for their specific biological contexts.

The experimental data and methodologies presented in this comparison guide provide a foundation for evidence-based evaluation of foundation model transferability. As the field continues to evolve, standardized assessment protocols and specialized transfer learning methods will play an increasingly important role in bridging the generalization gap and unlocking the full potential of AI in biological research and therapeutic development.

Conclusion

The evaluation of foundation models in bioinformatics reveals a field of immense promise navigating a critical period of maturation. While these models provide robust, versatile frameworks capable of capturing profound biological insights, no single model consistently outperforms others across all tasks. The future of the field hinges on a necessary shift from model proliferation to focused model utilization, requiring rigorous, standardized benchmarking and the development of biologically grounded interpretability methods. Success will be measured by the ability to translate these powerful tools into tangible clinical impacts, guiding cell atlas construction, deepening our understanding of the tumor microenvironment, and ultimately informing treatment decisions. Future efforts must prioritize creating more interpretable, efficient, and clinically actionable models to fully realize the potential of foundation models in advancing biomedical science.

References

• 1. Progress and opportunities of foundation models in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11512649/]
• 2. Foundation models in bioinformatics - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11900445/]
• 3. A survey on large language models in biology and chemistry [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01583-1]
• 4. Benchmarking foundation cell models for post-perturbation ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11600-2]
• 5. Single-cell foundation models evaluated | Nature Methods [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02735-x]
• 6. When are Foundation Models Not the Answer? [https://sites.wustl.edu/genome/when-are-foundation-models-not-the-answer/]
• 7. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12586647/]
• 8. A Biologically Inspired Spiking Neuromorphic Transformer [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.14691]
• 9. Nucleotide Transformer: building and evaluating robust ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-024-02523-z]
• 10. Zero-shot evaluation reveals limitations of foundation ... [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/articles/zero-shot-evaluation-reveals-limitations-of-foundation-models-in-single-cell-biology/]
• 11. A Tutorial on the Pretrain-Finetune Paradigm for Natural ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02504]
• 12. Foundation models in bioinformatics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40078374/]
• 13. Insights, opportunities, and challenges provided by large cell ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03771-8]
• 14. Fine tuning Vs Pre-training [https://medium.com/@eordaxd/fine-tuning-vs-pre-training-651d05186faf]
• 15. Fine-tuning [https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/en/training]
• 16. Mapping single-cell data to reference atlases by transfer ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01001-7]
• 17. Transfer learning and fine-tuning | TensorFlow Core [https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/images/transfer_learning]
• 18. LLM Leaderboard 2025 [https://www.vellum.ai/llm-leaderboard]
• 19. Ultimate 2025 AI Language Models Comparison | GPT-5, ... [https://www.promptitude.io/post/ultimate-2025-ai-language-models-comparison-gpt5-gpt-4-claude-gemini-sonar-more]
• 20. Top 9 Large Language Models as of November 2025 [https://www.shakudo.io/blog/top-9-large-language-models]
• 21. Top 10 Vision Language Models in 2025 [https://dextralabs.com/blog/top-10-vision-language-models/]
• 22. FastVLM: Efficient Vision Encoding for Vision Language ... [https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/fast-vision-language-models]
• 23. AI trends in 2025: Graph Neural Networks [https://assemblyai.com/blog/ai-trends-graph-neural-networks]
• 24. AesBiasBench: Evaluating Bias and Alignment in ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11620]
• 25. Circuit Tracing: Revealing Computational Graphs in ... [https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/methods.html]
• 26. Databases, Repositories and Other Data Resources in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5587190/]
• 27. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12492631/]
• 28. Single-cell foundation models: bringing artificial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01547-5]
• 29. Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology Data Repositories [https://guides.lib.uchicago.edu/c.php?g=435403&p=2968512]
• 30. The STRING database in 2025: protein networks with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701646/]
• 31. CellFinder: a cell data repository - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3965082/]
• 32. The GravyTrain toolbox for molecular cell biology | PLOS One [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332438]
• 33. Effect of tokenization on transformers for biological ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055402/]
• 34. Tokenization and deep learning architectures in genomics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12356405/]
• 35. Tokenization and deep learning architectures in genomics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025003022]
• 36. A novel deep learning framework with dynamic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12204613/]
• 37. Protein Structure Tokenization: Benchmarking and New ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.00089v2]
• 38. Protein Structure Tokenization: Benchmarking and New ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=o4ANDWaomX&noteId=S0ylHurCFP]
• 39. Tokenized and continuous embedding compressions of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389925001370]
• 40. The crisis of biomedical foundation models [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046425001467]
• 41. Article BioLLM: A standardized framework for integrating ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389925001746]
• 42. Transformative advances in single-cell omics: a ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-025-07091-0]
• 43. Transcoder-based Circuit Analysis for Interpretable Single- ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.14723v1]
• 44. DNA Foundation Models and Their Applications - Adith Arun [https://www.aditharun.com/p/dna-foundation-models]
• 45. Benchmarking DNA Foundation Models for Genomic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39185205]
• 46. Benchmarking DNA Foundation Models for Genomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11343214/]
• 47. a benchmark suite for long-range DNA prediction tasks [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65077-4]
• 48. Advancing Human Population Genomics with DNA ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.09.09.25335438v1]
• 49. Leading AI-Driven Drug Discovery Platforms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031699725075118]
• 50. Artificial Intelligence in Cancer Drug Discovery in 2025 [https://oncodaily.com/oncolibrary/artificial-intelligence-in-cancer-drug-discovery]
• 51. MIT scientists debut a generative AI model that could ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/mit-scientists-debut-generative-ai-model-that-could-create-molecules-addressing-hard-to-treat-diseases-1125]
• 52. AI in drug discovery: Key trends shaping therapeutics in 2025 [https://www.gubra.dk/blog/ai-in-drug-discovery-key-trends-shaping-therapeutics-in-2025/]
• 53. Large language models versus classical machine learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-26705-7]
• 54. The Top 10 Medical Large Language Models of 2025 [https://dr7.ai/blog/health/automobile-all-the-stats-facts-and-data-youll-ever-need-to-know/]
• 55. Progress and opportunities of foundation models in bioinformatics - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39461902/]
• 56. Multi-omics Data Integration, Interpretation, and Its Application [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7003173/]
• 57. Deep learning-based approaches for multi-omics data ... [https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13040-024-00391-z]
• 58. A review on multi-omics integration for aiding study design of ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11925-y]
• 59. Progress and Opportunities of Foundation Models in ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04286]
• 60. High performance data integration for large-scale analyses ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62237-4]
• 61. Effective integration of multi-omics with prior knowledge to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-025-00519-9]
• 62. State of Foundation Model Training Report 2025 [https://neptune.ai/state-of-foundation-model-training-report]
• 63. Essential guidelines for computational method benchmarking [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1738-8]
• 64. Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11447944/]
• 65. Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-024-03401-9]
• 66. Machine Learning Methods for Small Data Challenges in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10999174/]
• 67. Benchmarking foundation models as feature extractors for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01516-3]
• 68. Comparison of statistical methods and the use of quality ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30161168/]
• 69. Identifying and mitigating batch effects in whole genome ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-017-1756-z]
• 70. What are Foundation Models? - Generative AI [https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/foundation-models/]
• 71. Foundation Model vs LLM: Key Differences Explained [https://labelyourdata.com/articles/foundation-model-vs-llm]
• 72. Mastering Metrics: A Guide to Quantitative Data Collection ... [https://research-rebels.com/blogs/how-to-write-thesis/mastering-metrics-a-guide-to-quantitative-data-collection-methods]
• 73. Foundation models and intelligent decision-making [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12169281/]
• 74. BIOINFORMATICS 2025 Abstracts [https://bioinformatics.scitevents.org/Abstract.aspx?idEvent=n6qi5+RB4cA=]
• 75. Ten simple rules for building and maintaining sustainable high ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013481]
• 76. Mastering Explainable AI in 2025: A Beginner's Guide to ... [https://superagi.com/mastering-explainable-ai-in-2025-a-beginners-guide-to-transparent-and-interpretable-models/]
• 77. AI Explainability 2025: LLM Transparency & CoT Techniques [https://futureagi.com/blogs/ai-explainability-tools-techniques-2025]
• 78. Enabling interpretable machine learning for biological data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10249903/]
• 79. Interpreting biologically informed neural networks for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41146-4]
• 80. Explainable AI (XAI) in 2025: How to Trust AI ... - Blog de Bismart [https://blog.bismart.com/en/explainable-ai-business-trust]
• 81. Accelerating AI in Biology With Community-Driven ... [https://chanzuckerberg.com/blog/ai-biology-community-benchmarks/]
• 82. Benchmarking and Evaluation of AI Models in Biology [https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.10502]
• 83. BioProBench: Comprehensive Dataset and Benchmark in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.07889v2]
• 84. Urban Institute Data Visualization style guide - GitHub Pages [http://urbaninstitute.github.io/graphics-styleguide/]
• 85. A comparative benchmarking and evaluation framework for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38647153/]
• 86. Biology-driven insights into the power of single-cell foundation ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03781-6]
• 87. CellFM: a large-scale foundation model pre-trained on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12092794/]
• 88. Comparative benchmarking of single-cell clustering ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03719-y]
• 89. Benchmarking integration of single-cell differential ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37126-3]
• 90. CellBench: R/Bioconductor software for comparing single- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7141847/]
• 91. Comparative analysis of gene regulation in single cells ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667237525000712]
• 92. Learning and actioning general principles of cancer cell ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56827-5]
• 93. The specification game: rethinking the evaluation of drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11907791/]
• 94. Cancer models in preclinical research: A chronicle review of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8212826/]
• 95. Cell-ontology guided transcriptome foundation model [https://arxiv.org/html/2408.12373v1]
• 96. Annotation of biological samples data to standard ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025001837]
• 97. Evaluating the generalizability and transferability of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135425011790]
• 98. Advancing drug development with “Fit-for-Purpose” modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12436579/]
• 99. Estimating Time Series Foundation Model Transferability ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.23695v1]